Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/christianfaithinOOricerich 


CHRISTIAN   FAITH   IN  AN  AGE  OF 
SCIENCE 


^CHRISTIAN  FAITH 
IN  AN  AGE  OF 
SCIENCE  •  .      .      .     . 


WILLIAM  NORTH  RICE,  Ph.D.,   1.1  .D. 

Professor  of  Geology  In  Wesleyan  University 

or  THE 
OF 

SECOND    EDITION 


NEW  YORK 
A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    AND    SON 

3  &  5  West  iStli  Street,  near  $^^  Avenue 
1904 


\'}\  (  c 


Copyright,  1903 

By  A.  C.  ARMSX^ONG  &  SON. 

Published  December,  1903 


Second   Printing,  May,  1904 


Printed  by 
Eaton  &  Mains,  New  York,  U.  S.  A. 


PREFACE 


In  my  student  days  I  became  deeply  interested  in 
the  relations  of  science  and  religion,  and  in  the  tenta- 
tive and  provisional  solution  of  the  problems  which 
the  advance  of  science  offers  to  religious  thought.  The 
sympathy  I  have  felt  with  the  perplexities  of  successive 
classes  of  students,  in  an  experience  of  more  than  thirty 
years  as  a  teacher  of  geology  and  the  cognate  sciences, 
has  kept  the  subject  ever  before  my  mind.  The  thought 
of  many  years  finds  expression  in  the  present  volume. 

I  have  ventured  to  hope  that  the  book  may  be  useful 
to  several  classes  of  people.  To  some  of  my  brethren 
in  the  church,  and  particularly  in  the  ministry,  who 
have  a  hardly  adequate  appreciation  of  the  value  of 
the  contribution  which  science  has  made  to  the  world^s 
thought,  I  have  hoped  that  these  pages  may  bring  a 
more  generous  appreciation  of  the  results  of  science, 
and  a  greater  tolerance  of  those  modifications  of  re- 
ligious belief  which  seem  necessary  to  most  scientific 
men.  To  some  of  my  associates  in  scientific  work,  who 
may  have  come  to  suspect  that  Christianity  is  a  mere 
survival  from  an  unscientific  age,  I  have  hoped  to  show 
that  the  Man  of  Nazareth  has  still  a  message  even  for 
those  who  rejoice  in  the  discovery  and  possession  of 

V 


■i  i^ o  o  r  !'■ 


Preface 

the  new  worlds  of  truth  revealed  by  modern  science. 
Above  all,  I  have  hoped  to  be  of  service  to  the  same 
class  with  whose  perplexities  I  have  sympathized, 
whose  doubts  I  have  sought  to  resolve,  and  whose  en- 
thusiasm for  truth  has  been  to  me  an  inspiration,  in  my 
life  as  a  teacher.  I  have  hoped  that  this  book  may  help 
some  young  men  and  women,  reared  in  Christian 
homes  and  still  cherishing  the  religious  life  which  grew 
up  amid  the  associations  of  their  childhood,  to  feel  a 
stronger  confidence  that  the  old  heritage  of  Christian 
faith  need  not  be  lost,  in  gaining  the  new  treasures  of 
science  whose  acquisition  is  the  joy  of  their  student 
days. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  furnish  a  complete 
bibliography  of  the  wide  range  of  subjects  treated  in 
the  book.  Some  references  have  been  given,  however, 
to  acknowledge  indebtedness  for  a  fruitful  thought,  or 
to  adduce  an  authority  for  some  fact  or  opinion  which 
has  not  yet  become  a  part  of  the  commonplace  of  sci- 
ence. Other  references  have  been  given  for  the  con- 
venience of  readers  who  may  desire  fuller  and  more 
detailed  information  on  some  of  the  subjects  briefly 
treated  in  this  work.  As  the  book  is  intended  for  gen- 
eral readers  rather  than  for  specialists,  I  have  not  been 
particular  to  refer  to  the  original  sources,  but  have 
aimed  to  refer  to  books  that  are  easily  accessible.  With 
very  few  exceptions  the  references  are  to  books  in  the 
English  language. 

Although  the  present  work  is  essentially  new,  it  con- 
tains a  small  amount  of  material  which  has  been  pre- 

vi 


Preface 

viously  published.  Certain  portions  are  taken  with  ht- 
tle  alteration  from  a  book  entitled  "Twenty-five  Years 
of  Scientific  Progress,  and  Other  Essays."  Acknowl- 
edgment is  due  to  Eaton  &  Mains  for  permission  to 
republish  the  greater  part  of  two  articles  which  have 
appeared  in  the  "Methodist  Review."  Acknowledg- 
ment is  due  also  to  D.  Appleton  &  Co.  and  to  the  Open 
Court  Publishing  Company  for  permission  to  copy  a 
few  figures. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  a  number  of  my  colleagues  in 
the  Faculty  of  Wesleyan  University  for  information 
kindly  furnished,  supplementing  my  meager  knowledge 
of  some  subjects  which  the  plan  of  the  work  made  it 
necessary  to  treat.  In  conclusion,  I  take  pleasure  in 
acknowledging  the  assistance  of  my  brother,  Rev. 
Charles  F.  Rice,  D.D.,  and  my  son,  Professor  Edward 
L.  Rice,  Ph.D.,  who  have  read  the  book  in  proof,  the 
latter  also  in  manuscript,  and  who  have  favored  me 

with  valuable  criticisms. 

vii 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction i 

Part  I.    History  of  Scientific  Discoveries  Which 

Have  Affected  Religious  Beliefs 15 

I.    The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 15 

n.     The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 41 

The  Antiquity  of  Man 55 

Genesis  and  Geology ^ 81 

HI.    The  Unity  of  the  Universe 1 24 

The  Conservation  of  Energy 125 

Evolution 142 

The  Nebular  Theory 142 

Evolution  in  Geology 153 

Evolution  in  Biology 1 59 

The  Origin  of  Species 1 59 

The  Origin  of  Life 238 

Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 251 

Part  II.    Status   of  Certain  Doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity IN  AN  Age  of  Science 289 

The  Personality  of  Man   289 

The  Personality  of  God 301 

Law  in  Nature 321 

Providence 337 

Prayer 341 

Miracle. ...    351 

Revelation  and  the  Bible 385 

Part  III.    General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences..  393 

ix 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


FIG.  PAGE 

1.  Earth,   Venus,   and    Sun,   according  to   the    Ptolemaic 

theory 26 

2.  Earth,   Venus,  and  Sun,   according  to  the  Copernican 

theory.   27 

3.  The  fall  of  the  moon 31 

4.  Wall  ot  Canon  of  Colorado  River,  showing  unconform- 

able strata 53 

5.  Picture  of  mammoth  engraved  by  paleolithic  man 61 

6.  Paleolithic  implements. 63 

7.  Neolithic  implements 64 

8.  Egyptian  mural  painting,  showing  Caucasian  and  Negro 

profiles 78 

9.  Skeleton  of  anterior  limb  in  various  vertebrates 178 

10.  Development  of  the  gastrula  in  Amphioxus 182 

11.  Embryos  of  four  classes  of  vertebrates 185 

12.  Skull  of  Pithecanthropus  erectus 258 

13.  Profiles  of  human  and  simian  skulls 259 

14.  Curve  represented  by  equation,  ay  =  ±\/ x{x  —  l>){x  —  c). .  333 

15.  Curve  represented  by  equation,  ay  =  ±x\/x  —  c 335 

xi 


OF  THE 

UNIV£RS/TY 

INTRODUCTION 


No  revolution  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  life  of 
mankind  is  comparable  with  that  which  was  wrought 
by  the  influence  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  The  contrast  between  the  stupendous  re- 
sult and  the  apparent  feebleness  of  the  means  by  which 
it  was  effected  is  amazing.  A  Galilean  peasant,  with- 
out education,  without  social  position  or  any  other 
element  of  worldly  power,  strolled  up  and  down  the 
land  of  Palestine,  talking  of  the  Heavenly  Father  and 
of  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  wrote  no  book,  he  de- 
veloped no  system  of  philosophy,  he  effected  no  defi- 
nite social  organization.  His  teaching  aroused  the 
rancorous  hostility  of  the  chief  priests  and  other  re- 
ligious leaders  of  his  own  people.  Their  malice 
brought  him  to  trial  before  the  Roman  procurator,  and 
terrorized  the  procurator  into  ordering  his  crucifixion. 

The  little  band  of  disciples  that  he  left,  inspired  by 
their  love  for  him  and  their  faith  in  his  resurrection, 
entered  upon  the  seemingly  quixotic  undertaking  of 
converting  the  world  to  a  new  religion.  The  most 
conspicuous  leaders  of  this  little  band  were  a  group 
of  fishermen  whom  Jesus  had  called  from  their  nets 
on  the  shore  of  Galilee.     A  quarter  of  a  century  later 

1 


Introduction 

it  was  said  of  the  body  of  Christians,  "Not  many  wise 
men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty,  not  many  noble 
are  called."  Among  the  original  apostles  there  was 
not  one  whom  the  world  would  have  reckoned  as  wise 
or  mighty  or  noble.  From  the  very  beginning,  the 
chief  priests  and  religious  leaders  of  the  Jews  cherished 
a  violent  hostility  to  the  new  sect,  and  employed  against 
its  members  such  measures  of  persecution  as  they  were 
able  to  practice  in  their  condition  of  political  depend- 
ence. Outside  the  pale  of  the  Jewish  nation  the  body 
of  Christians  was  for  a  time  protected  by  its  yery 
insignificance;  but,  as  the  church  increased  in  num- 
bers, it  provoked  antagonism.  It  came  into  conflict 
with  a  polytheistic  religion,  enshrined  in  poetry  whose 
beauty  the  world  will  never  outgrow,  incarnated  in 
sculpture  whose  fragmentary  relics  are  the  admiration 
of  mankind.  It  found  the  polytheistic  faith  inter- 
twined with  all  social  and  political  institutions,  so  that 
refusal  to  conform  to  the  rites  of  the  popular  religion 
ostracized  the  Christians  from  society,  and  exposed 
them  to  the  penalties  involved  in  disobedience  to  the 
laws  of  the  state.  In  seeking  dominion  over  the  minds 
and  the  conduct  of  men,  the  new  religion  came  into 
competition  not  only  with  the  popular  religion,  but  also 
with  systems  of  philosophy  in  which  some  of  the 
world's  greatest  thinkers  had  sought  to  solve  the  mys- 
teries of  life  and  destiny.  The  new  religion  encoun- 
tered the  contempt  of  the  learned  and  the  hatred  of 
the  vulgar.  The  tremendous  power  of  the  Roman 
empire  was  exerted  for  its  suppression.     Persecution 

2 


Early  Struggles  of  Christianity 

unto  death  threatened  the  Christians,  now  from  the 
violence  of  mobs,  now  from  the  severity  of  legal  tribu- 
nals. The  Roman  populace  amused  itself  with  their 
dying  agonies,  as  they  fought  with  lions  in  the  arena; 
and,  clothed  in  pitchy  shirts,  their  bodies  flamed  as 
ghastly  torches  to  light  up  the  gardens  of  Nero. 

Yet  Christianity  pursued  its  resistless  way,  and  in 
less  than  three  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  its 
founder  it  had  become  a  legalized  religion  throughout 
the  Roman  empire.  In  the  year  of  our  Lord  313,  the 
edict  of  Constantine  and  Licinius  repealed  all  statutes 
against  the  Christians,  and  gave  full  toleration  to  the 
new  faith.     The  Galilean  had  conquered. 

It  must  be  supposed  that  Christianity  thus  won  its 
way,  in  spite  of  all  opposing  forms  of  religious  and 
philosophic  belief,  because,  in  the  light  of  such  knowl- 
edge as  the  world  then  possessed,  it  appeared  to  be 
probably  true.  Not,  indeed,  that  then,  or  at  any  other 
time,  were  men's  opinions  purely  logical,  in  the  sense 
of  being  formed  by  a  purely  intellectual  process  of 
weighing  of  evidence.  The  progress  of  Christianity 
was  unquestionably  due  largely  to  emotional  influ- 
ences. The  pitying  admiration  with  which  multitudes 
beheld  the  calm  fortitude  and  forgiving  meekness  of 
the  martyrs  doubtless  made  many  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity. But  there  was  a  sound,  though  unformulated, 
logic  in  such  play  of  feeling,  for  there  is  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  a  faith  whose  fruit  is  transcendent  good- 
ness is  rooted  in  essential  truth.  But,  however  the 
intellectual  processes  of  men  may  be  modified  by  emo- 

3 


Introduction 

tional  excitement,  it  is  broadly  true  that  the  opinions 
of  masses  of  men,  though  never  wholly  rational,  are 
never  wholly  irrational.  We  must  therefore  suppose 
that,  in  the  light  of  all  the  knowledge  then  available, 
the  evidences  of  Christianity  were  such  as  to  establish 
its  probable  truth. 

But  the  intellectual  atmosphere  of  our  age  is  vastly 
different  from  that  of  the  first  century  of  the  Chris- 
tian era;  and  it  is  a  serious  question  whether  the 
religion  whose  birth  and  rapid  early  growth  took  place 
in  the  intellectual  environment  of  that  far-off  age  can 
continue  to  subsist  in  the  very  different  environment 
of  our  time. 

The  contrast  between  the  first  century  and  the  twen- 
tieth may  be  broadly  expressed  in  a  single  word.  That 
was  an  unscientific  age,  this  is  a  scientific  age.  There 
was  in  general  little  of  science  even  among  the  philos- 
ophers of  the  ancient  world.  Some,  indeed,  there  were 
who  manifested  in  considerable  degree  the  scientific 
spirit.  The  works  of  Aristotle  give  abundant  evi- 
dence of  careful  observation  of  physical  phenomena 
and  sound  inductive  reasoning  based  upon  such  ob- 
servation. The  Museum  of  Alexandria  was  the  home 
of  a  group  of  investigators  whose  spirit  and  whose 
achievements  were  truly  scientific.  But  the  most  of 
the  ancient  philosophers  were  given  to  a  priori  specula- 
tions in  regard  to  the  m3^steries  of  existence,  rather 
than  to  observation  of  definite  phenomena  and  induc- 
tions based  thereon. 

Moreover,    what    little   science   there   was   in   the 

4 


An  Unscientific  Age 

schools  of  philosophers  failed  to  exert  any  consider- 
able influence  upon  popular  thought.  The  doctrines 
of  the  philosophers  were  held  and  taught  in  esoteric 
fashion.  In  the  absence  of  the  art  of  printing,  books 
were  rare  and  costly,  and  anything  like  a  general 
diffusion  of  knowledge  was  impossible.  Nor  did 
the  philosophers  wish  to  diffuse  their  knowledge. 
They  counted  philosophic  thought  the  high  privilege 
of  a  select  few,  who  dwelt  apart  from  the  vulgar  herd, 
like  the  gods  of  Olympus.  The  disciples  of  a  philoso- 
pher constituted  in  general  a  sort  of  secret  society. 
They  were  initiated  into  mysteries  which  were  their 
exclusive  possession.  They  never  dreamed  of  any 
obligation  to  hold  the  lamp  of  truth  which  was  given 
to  them  so  as  to  illumine  the  path  of  common  mortals. 
In  part,  too,  this  esoteric  habit  of  the  philosophers  was 
necessary  for  self-preservation.  Their  views  were 
often  more  or  less  in  conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the 
popular  religion,  but  they  suffered  no  peril  while  they 
philosophized  in  secret  and  conformed  in  public  to  the 
popular  ritual.  Had  the  teaching  of  philosophy  been 
more  public,  there  might  have  been  other  martyrs  be- 
sides Socrates.  Untouched  by  the  influence  of  science, 
the  popular  conception  of  the  universe  was  largely 
poetic  and  mythological.  The  age  when  the  sunbeams 
were  the  golden  arrows  of  Apollo,  is  very  far  removed 
from  an  age  in  which  we  measure  the  wave-lengths 
and  count  the  vibrations  of  light. 

Christianity  was  the  heir  of  Judaism,  and  its  herit- 
age included  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  known  to  us  now 

5 


Introduction 

as  the  Old  Testament;  and  the  ideas  of  the  natural 
world  which  prevailed  among  the  early  Christians 
were  essentially  those  represented  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Exquisitely  beautiful  often  are  those  Hebrew 
representations  of  the  universe,  full  of  the  richest 
poetry  of  nature;  but  honest  exegesis  can  find  there 
no  faintest  gleam  of  the  light  of  science. 

On  one  point  there  was  substantial  agreement  among 
learned  and  unlearned,  pagans  and  Christians;  and 
that  was  the  geocentric  constitution  of  the  universe. 
The  earth  was  the  center  around  which  the  heavenly 
bodies  revolved,  and  those  bodies  were  functionally 
appendages  to  the  earth.  A  few  of  the  Greek  philoso- 
phers, indeed,  had  thought  of  the  sun  as  the  center  of 
the  system ;  but  they  had  no  very  satisfactory  evidence 
for  such  an  opinion,  and  with  them,  it  was  perhaps 
rather  an  accidental  vagary  than  a  manifestation  of 
surpassing  wisdom.  Certain  it  is  that  there  was  sub- 
stantial unanimity  in  the  notion  of  the  central  position 
of  the  earth.  In  regard  to  the  form  of  the  earth,  the 
learned  generally  regarded  the  earth  as  round,  while 
the  general  public  held  it  to  be  flat.  Some  of  the  Greek 
geometers  even  reached  approximately  correct  notions 
in  regard  to  the  size  of  the  earth.  But  popular  thought 
knew  nothing  of  such  notions.  To  the  Hebrew  people 
the  world  was  flat,  and  the  heaven  was  a  curtain 
stretched  over  it  like  the  roof  of  a  vast  tent,  supported 
by  mountain  pillars  around  the  borders  of  the  earth. 
From  time  to  time  windows  were  opened  in  that  roof, 
through  which  came  the  fertilizing  rains  and  snows. 

6 


Geocentric  Conception  of  the  Universe 

The  celestial  luminaries  were  the  adornments  of  that 
great  curtain  which  formed  the  roof  of  this  earthly 
tabernacle.  The  early  Christians  accepted  substan- 
tially the  old  Hebrew  conception  of  the  earth. 

In  the  writings  of  some  of  the  Greek  philosophers 
we  find  some  anticipation  of  evolutionary  ideas,  some 
recognition  of  the  truth  that  the  earth  has  come  to  be 
what  it  is  by  a  series  of  gradual  changes;  but  those 
notions  were  crude  and  premature.  The  mytholog- 
ical cosmogonies  were  mere  vagaries.  The  conception 
of  the  egg  from  which  emerged  the  universe,  and  the 
conception  of  the  primal  element  of  water  from  which 
all  things  were  evolved,  were  alike  destitute  of  any 
scientific  value.  Christianity  adopted  from  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  the  doctrine  of  the  origination  of  all 
things  in  a  series  of  creative  fiats  in  a  literal  week  a 
few  thousand  years  ago. 

Nowhere  was  there  a  conception  of  dynamic  unity 
in  the  universe.  The  conception  of  the  unity  of  na- 
ture can  belong  only  to  a  comparatively  advanced 
stage  of  scientific  development.  To  the  unscientific 
mind  the  processes  of  nature  seem  to  result  from  the 
play  of  agencies  mutually  independent  and  often  an- 
tagonistic. Polytheism  is  the  natural  counterpart  of 
the  unscientific  view  of  nature.  The  Hebrews,  unlike 
the  nations  around  them,  were  monotheists;  but  how 
far  the  actual  faith  of  the  mass  of  the  Hebrew  people 
was  a  strict  philosophic  monotheism  may  be  ques- 
tioned. Apparently,  at  least  in  the  early  stages  of 
Hebrew   religion,    a   practical   monotheism   coexisted 

7 


Introduction 

with  a  theoretical  polytheism.  Jehovah  was  a  god  so 
much  mightier  than  all  other  deities  that  they  deemed 
it  wise  to  ignore  all  others  and  worship  him  alone. 
Before  the  time  of  the  Christian  era,  however,  Hebrew 
faith  seems  to  have  reached  the  standard  of  genuine 
monotheism.  But,  though  monotheistic  faith  gives  to 
nature  a  sort  of  unity,  as  being  all  the  work  of  one 
Creator,  the  Hebrew  conception  of  God  was  too 
grossly  anthropomorphic  to  lead  to  any  such  thought 
of  the  unity  of  nature  as  modern  science  has  developed. 
A  God  subject  to  human  fickleness  and  caprice  could 
form  no  comprehensive  plan  whose  expression  in  na- 
ture would  be  changeless  law.  Nowhere  in  the  first 
century  was  there  any  such  faith  as  the  world  has  now 
reached  in  the  uniformity  of  nature  or  the  constancy 
of  natural  law.  Miracles  or  prodigies  could  be  ac- 
cepted without  investigation,  and  on  the  slightest  evi- 
dence of  testimony,  as  though  they  were  as  credible 
as  the  most  ordinary  facts.  The  flippant,  self-indul- 
gent Herod  could  believe  that  John  the  Baptist,  whom 
he  had  murdered,  had  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  widely 
diffused  among  the  Roman  populace  was  the  be- 
lief that  Nero  would  return  from  the  realm  of  shades 
to  curse  the  world  again  with  his  presence. 

The  change  in  the  view  of  nature  wrought  by  mod- 
ern science  involves  three  specially  important  ideas : 

I.  The  extension  of  the  universe  in  space,  and  the 
heliocentric  constitution  of  the  solar  system.  The 
heavenly  bodies  are  not  mere  appendages  of  the  earth, 
insignificant  in  size,  and  revolving  at  a  short  distance 

8 


Characteristic  Ideas  of  Science 

from  the  earth.  They  are  great  worlds  distributed 
through  space  at  immense  distances;  and,  of  that  sis- 
terhood of  worlds  to  which  our  earth  immediately  be- 
longs, the  sun  and  not  the  earth  is  the  center. 

2.  The  extension  of  the  universe  in  time.  The  uni- 
verse has  come  to  be  what  it  is  by  a  long  series  of 
changes,  and  the  earth  and  the  heavens  contain  monu- 
ments wherein  the  stages  of  that  history  are  recorded. 

3.  The  unity  of  the  universe.  Through  all  the 
seeming  chaos  of  phenomena  runs  one  all-pervading, 
all-controlling  system  of  law.  The  discovery  of  uni- 
versal gravitation  was  the  beginning  of  the  conception 
of  dynamic  unity  in  the  universe ;  and  in  later  time  the 
idea  of  the  unity  of  the  universe  has  found  its  com- 
pletest  expression  in  the  doctrine  of  conservation  of 
energy  and  in  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  the  one  as- 
cribing to  the  universe  a  unity  of  force,  and  the  other 
ascribing  to  it  a  continuity  of  development. 

The  question,  then,  before  us  is  whether  Christian- 
ity can  survive  the  prodigious  change  which  has  taken 
place  in  the  intellectual  environment.  It  is  obvious 
that  so  great  a  change  in  the  knowledge  and  thought 
of  the  world  must  involve  changes  in  many  beliefs 
more  or  less  closely  connected  with  Christianity.  An 
alleged  miraculous  event  is  necessarily  regarded  in  a 
very  different  light  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century  from  that  in  which  it  was  regarded  in  the  first 
century.  The  miraculous  character  of  a  narrative  was 
then  no  reason  why  any  one  should  fail  to  believe  it. 
In  this  age  of  scientific  thought,  every  alleged  miracle 

9 


Introduction 

labors  under  a  heavy  burden  of  a  priori  improbability. 
There  may  be  sufficient  reason  for  accepting  certain 
miracles  as  historic,  but  they  can  no  longer  be  accepted 
in  the  unquestioning  way  which  once  was  possible. 
The  status  of  miracle  in  relation  to  scientific  thought 
is  of  special  importance,  since  one  alleged  miracle — 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus — is  not  an  incidental  fact  con- 
nected with  Christianity,  nor  merely  an  evidence  of 
Christianity,  but  an  integral  part  of  Christianity.  The 
denial  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  would  involve  a 
radical  reconstruction  of  Christian  doctrine. 

In  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  and  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  we  are  told  that  Jesus  led  his  disciples 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives,  and  that,  after  talking  with 
them,  *'he  was  taken  up,  and  a  cloud  received  him  out 
of  their  sight."*  Those  men  accordingly  saw%  or 
thought  they  saw,  the  body  of  Jesus  ascending  verti- 
cally from  the  earth  until  it  was  hidden  from  them  by 
a  cloud.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  here  to  discuss  how 
far  their  impression  corresponded  to  objective  fact, 
and  how  far  it  was  merely  subjective.  Whatever  they 
saw,  or  thought  they  saw,  the  phenomenon  had  one 
meaning  to  men  who  supposed  that  directly  above  the 
flat  and  stationary  earth,  and  beyond  the  cloudy  ex- 
panse of  the  firmament,  was  the  throne  of  God ;  and  it 
must  have  a  very  different  meaning  to  men  who  believe 
that  the  earth  is  whirling  through  space  at  a  rate  of 
eighteen  and  one  half  miles  per  second,  and  that  the  di- 
rection of  the  zenith  changes  hourly  through  an  angle 

*  Acts,  i,  9. 

10 


Can  Christianity  Survive? 

equal  to  15°  multiplied  by  the  cosine  of  the  latitude. 
This  story  of  the  ascension  is  a  very  striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  truth  that  the  progress  of  science  renders 
inevitable  some  change  in  the  beliefs  that  have  been 
considered  an  integral  part  of  Christianity.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  the  necessary  changes  can  be  made, 
and  the  essentials  of  Christian  faith  preserved.  Can 
Christianity  be  so  modified  as  to  bring  it  into  har- 
mony with  the  new  environment?  or  must  it  share  the 
fate  of  all  ill-adjusted  organisms,  and  become  extinct? 

The  discussion  before  us  will  be  divided  into  three 
parts. 

In  the  first  part,  we  shall  pass  briefly  in  review  the 
history  of  those  scientific  discoveries  which  have  re- 
sulted in  developing  the  three  characteristic  ideas  of 
the  extension  of  the  universe  in  space,  the  extension 
of  the  universe  in  time,  and  the  unity  of  the  universe. 
The  history  will  be  sketched  in  an  order  partly  chron- 
ological and  partly  logical.  In  connection  with  each 
scries  of  scientific  discoveries  we  shall  consider  what 
changes  those  discoveries  have  necessitated  in  Chris- 
tian doctrine. 

In  the  second  part,  we  shall  consider  the  status  of 
certain  doctrines  of  Christianity,  in  relation,  not  to 
a  single  scientific  discovery,  but  to  the  general  intel- 
lectual atmosphere  which  the  progress  of  science  has 
developed. 

In  the  third  part,  we  shall  consider  the  general 
status  of  Christian  evidence  in  relation  to  the  intel- 
lectual atmosphere  of  a  scientific  age. 

H 


Introduction 

This  treatment  of  the  subject  will  necessarily  in- 
volve some  repetition;  as  it  will  be  necessary  to  dis- 
cuss somewhat  systematically  in  the  second  part 
certain  doctrines  to  which  reference  is  made  more  or 
less  extensively  in  the  first  part,  and  those  scientific 
discoveries  whose  history  is  sketched  in  the  first  part, 
must  from  time  to  time  be  referred  to  in  the  second 
and  the  third  part.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  this 
order  of  treatment  is  justified  by  sufficient  reasons  in 
spite  of  this  obvious  objection.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  the  first  part  of  the  discussion  will  be  chiefly 
scientific,  the  second  and  third  parts  chiefly  theological. 

12 


PART   I 

HISTORY  OF  SCIENTIFIC  DISCOVERIES 

WHICH   HAVE  AFFECTED 

RELIGIOUS  BELIEFS 


PART  I 

History  of   Scientific   Discoveries   Which   Have 
Affected  Religious  Beliefs 

!♦ — The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space  * 

The  approximately  spherical  form  of  the  earth  was 
clearly  recognized  by  Aristotle  and  others  of  the 
Greek  philosophers,  and  some  of  the  ancient  geometers 
had  even  reached  approximately  correct  notions  of 
the  size  of  the  earth.  The  arguments  which  led  the 
scientists  of  classical  time  to  a  belief  in  the  approx- 
imately spherical  form  of  the  earth  were  substantially 
the  same  whose  validity  is  recognized  in  the  thought 
of  to-day,  except  that  the  experimental  proof  afforded 
by  the  circumnavigation  of  the  globe  was  yet  many 
centuries  in  the  future.  Attention  was  called  by  the 
ancient  astronomers  to  the  change  in  the  elevation  of 
the  pole  star  in  journeying  northward  or  southward, 
and  to  the  fact  that  in  such  a  journey  some  stars  are 
lost  to  view  behind  the  traveler,  while  others  become 
visible  before  him.    The  circular  outline  of  the  shadow 

*The  history  of  astronomy  from  Hipparchus  to  Newton  is  given  with  great 
fullness  in  Whewell,  History  of  the  Inductive  Sciences.  A  brief  and  interesting 
sketch  of  the  main  features  of  the  history  is  given  in  Cooke,  The  Credentials 
of  Science  the  Warrant  of  Faith.  See  also  article  on  Astronomy^  by  Proctor, 
in  Encyclopcedia  Britannica  ;  Lodge,  Pioneers  of  Science. 

15 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

of  the  earth  cast  upon  the  moon  in  a  kinar  ecHpse  was 
also  recognized  as  a  cogent  argument  for  the  sphericity 
of  the  earth.  But,  while  the  Greek  philosophers  rec- 
ognized the  evidence  of  the  rotundity  of  the  earth,  the 
belief  of  the  mass  of  the  population  was  undoubtedly 
that  the  earth  was  flat.  The  Christian  church  in  its 
early  days  for  the  most  part  accepted  the  latter  view, 
in  accordance  with  the  implications  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures.  But,  during  the  centuries  w^hich  inter- 
vened between  the  founding  of  the  Christian  church 
and  the  epoch  of  great  maritime  discoveries  at  the 
close  of  the  fifteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  both  opinions  were  held  in  the  Christian 
church.  The  belief  in  the  sphericity  of  the  earth, 
though  not  the  belief  of  Christian  people  in  general, 
was  held  by  learned  men  in  the  church,  and  was  toler- 
ated. The  proof  which  finally  brought  a  practically 
universal  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sphericity 
of  the  earth  was  furnished  by  the  great  voyages  of 
discovery.  In  1492  Columbus  reached  the  West  In- 
dies by  journeying  westward  from  Spain.  In  1498 
Vasco  da  Gama  rounded  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  and 
sailed  through  the  Indian  Ocean  till  he  reached  the 
shores  of  India.  But  it  was  not  till  1522  that  the 
consummate  feat  of  circumnavigation  of  the  globe 
was  accomplished.  In  that  year  one  of  Magellan's 
ships  returned  to  Spain,  after  a  voyage  of  three  years, 
in  which  it  had  found  the  way  into  the  Pacific  through 
the  strait  whose  name  commemorates  the  achieve- 
ment, traversed  the  whole  extent  of  the  Pacific,  and 

16 


Spherical  Form  of  the  Earth^4^^^^qi^ 

rounded  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope;  though  the  intrepid 
commander  of  the  expedition  had  been  killed  in  the 
Philippine  Islands.  The  result  of  that  voyage  was  the 
universal  recognition  of  the  sphericity  of  the  earth. 
To  men  destitute  of  the  spirit  of  science,  who  formed 
their  opinions  in  what  they  supposed  to  be  the  light  of 
common  sense,  the  circular  outline  of  the  darkened 
area  on  the  eclipsed  moon  might  seem  evidence  all  too 
shadowy  to  justify  a  belief  which  seemed  to  contradict 
the  common  experience  of  mankind;  though  faith  in 
that  shadow  sustained  the  strong  soul  of  Magellan 
through  all  the  fearful  hardships  of  that  memorable 
voyage.  But  even  men  of  common  sense  could  not 
resist  the  evidence  which  was  furnished  by  the  cir- 
cumnavigation of  the  globe. 

While  there  was  difference  of  opinion  between  the 
ignorant  and  the  learned  in  ancient  times  in  regard  to 
the  form  of  the  earth,  there  was  practically  no  differ- 
ence in  regard  to  the  position  of  the  earth  relative  to 
the  other  bodies  of  the  universe.  The  geocentric  con- 
stitution of  the  universe  was  accepted  with  substantial 
unanimity.  Before  considering  the  series  of  discov- 
eries that  led  to  a  change  from  the  geocentric  to  the 
heliocentric  conception  of  the  solar  system,  let  us  con- 
sider the  facts  in  regard  to  the  apparent  movement  of 
the  heavenly  bodies,  and  the  way  in  which  those  facts 
were  explained  by  the  Greek  astronomers.  Every 
one  has  observed  that  the  whole  celestial  sphere — 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars — appears  to  revolve  around 
the  earth  from  east  to  west,  so  that  each  of  the  heav- 

17 


The  Extension  of  tpie  Universe  in  Space 

enly  bodies  appears  to  rise  in  the  east,  and,  after 
passing  across  the  sky,  to  vanish  below  the  horizon 
in  the  west.  It  was,  however,  very  early  observed 
that  seven  of  the  celestial  bodies  which  are  large 
enough  and  near  enough  to  be  seen  with  the  naked  eye, 
have  a  movement  independent  of  that  general  move- 
ment of  the  celestial  sphere.  The  sun,  the  moon,  and 
the  five  planets,  Mercury,  Venus,  Mars,  Jupiter,  and 
Saturn,  were  observed  to  change  their  place  with  ref- 
erence to  the  other  bodies,  the  so-called  fixed  stars. 
The  appearance  is  that,  while  the  celestial  sphere  as 
a  whole  revolves  around  the  earth  from  east  to  west 
in  every  twenty- four  hours,  these  seven  wanderers 
have  a  slower  independent  revolution  from  west  to 
east.  Closer  study  of  the  apparent  movements  of  these 
bodies  showed  that  their  apparent  revolution  from 
west  to  east  within  the  celestial  sphere  is  executed 
with  unequal  velocity.  In  fact,  in  the  case  of  the  five 
planets,  the  movement  is  not  even  constant  in  direc- 
tion. They  seem  to  move  for  a  certain  time  from  west 
to  east,  and  then  to  stop  and  move  for  a  time  from  east 
to  west,  though  the  net  result  of  the  movement  which 
they  have,  independent  of  the  general  movement  of 
the  celestial  sphere,  is  a  revolution  from  west  to  east 
This  irregularity  in  the  velocity  and  the  direction  of 
the  movement  of  these  planets  was  difiicult  to  under- 
stand; for,  in  all  the  speculations  of  the  ancient  as- 
tronomers, it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  motion 
of  the  heavenly  bodies  must  be  supposed  to  be  in  cir- 
cular orbits  and  with  uniform  velocity.     Of  course  we 

i8 


HiPPARCHUS    AND    PtOLEMV 

know  now  that  both  of  these  presuppositions  were 
false,  and  it  is  a  little  difficult  for  us  to  understand 
why  those  notions  were  held  with  so  great  a  degree 
of  confidence.  But  it  was  supposed  that  the  circle,  in 
its  complete  symmetry,  was  the  one  perfect  curve,  and 
that  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  eternal  fitness  of  things 
for  the  heavenly  bodies  to  move  in  any  other  than  a 
circular  path,  or  to  move  otherwise  than  with  uniform 
velocity.  Erroneous  as  were  these  notions,  there  was 
a  truth  underlying  them — the  truth  expressed  in 
Plato's  oft-quoted  phrase,  *'God  geometrizes" — the 
truth  that  the  harmony  of  perfect  law  pervades  the 
universe,  and  that  all  seeming  irregularities  in  nature 
are  due  only  to  the  imperfection  of  our  knowledge.  The 
problem  to  be  solved  by  the  Greek  astronomers  was, 
then,  to  account  for  the  apparently  irregular  move- 
ments of  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets,  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  their  real  movements  were  in  circular  orbits, 
and  with  uniform  velocity.  The  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem was  given  by  Hipparchus  in  the  middle  of  the 
second  century  before  Christ;  and,  with  somewhat 
fuller  elaboration,  the  same  theory  was  given  in  the 
"Almagest"  of  Ptolemy  about  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  after  Christ.  The  title  by  which  Ptolemy's 
work  is  known  is  a  curious  illustration  of  a  phase  of 
the  intellectual  history  of  mankind.  Ptolemy's  work, 
which,  of  course,  was  written  in  Greek,  bore  the  title, 
'H  fiEyinrr]  ovvra^ig  Tjjg  darpovoi^uag.  But,  in  the  middle 
ages,  the  original  work  of  Ptolemy  was  lost,  and 
no  manuscript  of  it  was  discovered  until  the  fifteenth 

19 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

century.  In  the  meanwhile  it  had  been  translated  into 
Arabic  in  the  Saracen  revival  of  learning,  and  so  came 
to  bear  the  Arabic  name  of  ''Almagest,"  which  is  es- 
sentially a  hybrid  combination  of  an  Arabic  article 
with  the  adjective  which  forms  the  first  word  of  the 
Greek  title.  To  medieval  scholars  the  writings  of 
Ptolemy  were  known  by  a  Latin  translation  made 
from  the  Arabic. 

The  theory  of  Hipparchtis  and  Ptolemy  in  regard 
to  the  movement  of  the  sun  around  the  earth  was 
simply  that  the  earth  was  not  in  the  center  of  the  sun's 
orbit,  but  a  little  removed  from  the  center.  This,  of 
course,  would  give  to  the  apparent  movement  of  the 
sun  a  variable  velocity.  The  sun  would  seem  to  move 
faster  in  that  part  of  its  orbit  in  which  it  was  nearer 
to  the  earth,  and  more  slowly  in  that  part  of  its 
orbit  in  which  it  was  farther  from  the  earth.  In  the 
case  of  the  moon,  whose  path  appeared  more  irregular 
than  that  of  the  sun,  it  was  necessary  to  make  the 
further  supposition  that  the  orbit  itself  revolves  in  a 
retrograde  direction,  or  from  east  to  west,  so  that  the 
position  of  the  apogee  (the  point  of  the  orbit  most 
distant  from  the  earth)  is  continually  changing.  The 
apparent  retrograde  movement  exhibited  at  times  by 
the  planets  could  not  be  explained  in  quite  so  simple  a 
way.  It  was,  however,  explained,  consistently  with 
the  supposition  of  uniform  circular  movement,  by  the 
supposition  that  a  planet  revolves  in  one  circle  called 
the  epicycle,  whose  center  in  turn  revolves  in  another 
circle  called  the  deferent. 

20 


Eccentrics  and  Epicycles 

When  the  movement  of  the  planets  was  formulated 
in  this  wise,  as  a  revolution  in  an  epicycle,  which  it- 
self revolves  in  a  deferent,  certain  coincidences  re- 
vealed themselves.  It  was  necessary  to  make  Mer- 
cury and  Venus  revolve  in  their  respective  deferents, 
and  to  make  Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn  revolve  in  their 
respective  epicycles,  in  exactly  one  year.  The  fact, 
then,  that  the  time  of  revolution  of  two  of  the  planets 
in  their  deferents,  and  of  the  other  three  in  their 
epicycles,  was  exactly  identical  with  the  time  of  the 
revolution  of  the  sun  in  its  eccentric  orbit,  ought,  it 
would  now  seem,  to  have  suggested  the  idea  that  those 
planets  were  in  some  way  connected  with  the  sun  in 
their  movement;  but  no  such  significance  seems  to 
have  been  recognized. 

As  astronomical  observations  became  more  accu- 
rate and  more  numerous,  additional  irregularities  in 
the  apparent  movements  of  the  planets  forced  them- 
selves upon  the  attention  of  the  astronomers;  for  we 
now  know  that  the  actual  path  of  the  planets,  under 
the  influence  of  the  mutual  gravitation  of  the  sun  and 
planets,  is  exceedingly  complex.  But  each  new  dis- 
covery of  a  seeming  irregularity  in  planetary  move- 
ments only  suggested  some  additional  device  in  the 
construction  of  epicycles;  so  that  the  theory  became 
overweighted  by  its  excess  of  complexity.  It  was  in 
allusion  to  the  extreme  complexity  which  the  theory 
of  epicycles  finally  developed,  that  Milton  represents 
his  "affable  archangel"  as  intimating  to  Adam  that 
the  Creator  had  left  the  construction  of  the  heavens 

21 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

unrevealecl  in  order  that  he  might  find  amusement  in 
seeing  how  men  would  puzzle  themselves  with  the 
problems  of  the  universe — 

"How  gird  the  sphere 
With  centric  and  eccentric   scribbled  o'er, 
Cycle  and  epicycle,  orb  in  orb." 

It  was  in  allusion  to  the  same  complexity  that  Al- 
phonso  X.  of  Castile  is  said  to  have  remarked  that, 
"if  God  had  consulted  him  at  the  creation,  the  universe 
should  have  been  on  a  better  and  simpler  plan." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  Ptolemaic  solution  of  the 
problem  presented  by  the  apparent  movements  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  was  purely  formal  and  geometrical. 
It  attempted  no  explanation  of  the  nature  of  the  force 
by  which  the  planets  were  impelled  in  their  move- 
ments, and  constrained  to  move  in  their  particular 
orbits.  The  aim  of  the  Ptolemaic  system  was  solely 
to  find  a  supposable  combination  of  circles,  in  which 
bodies,  moving  with  uniform  velocity,  would  exhibit 
the  apparent  movements  of  the  planets  as  seen  from 
the  earth.  The  problem,  as  thus  defined,  presented  by 
the  apparent  movements  of  the  planets  so  far  as  known 
to  Hipparchus  and  Ptolemy,  was  completely  solved 
by  the  system  of  epicycles;  and,  as  later  refinements 
of  observation  detected  other  and  minuter  apparent 
irregularities  in  the  planetary  movements,  a  more  elab- 
orate construction  on  the  same  principles  sufificed  for 
their  formulation.  The  time  for  a  dynamic  explana- 
tion of  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies  was 
not  yet. 

22 


Copernicus 

The  Ptolemaic  astronomy  held  substantially  undis- 
puted sway  until  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
In  1543  a  German  priest,  Kopernik,  better  known  as 
Copernicus,  since  in  the  fashion  of  the  time  he  wrote 
in  Latin,  published  the  epoch-making  work  in  which 
the  heliocentric  arrangement  of  the  solar  system  was 
advocated.  The  book  had  been  written  many  years 
before,  but  its  publication  was  delayed  until  the  very 
year  of  its  author's  death.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that,  though  the  ancient  world  was  well-nigh  unan- 
imous in  the  belief  in  the  geocentric  arrangement  of 
the  universe,  Copernicus  was  led  to  speculate  in  regard 
to  the  possibility  of  a  different  arrangement  by  the  fact 
that  a  few  of  the  Greek  philosophers  had  held  the 
heliocentric  view.  According  to  the  Copernican  the- 
ory, the  apparent  movement  of  the  whole  celestial 
sphere  from  east  to  west  is  due  simply  to  a  rotation  of 
the  earth,  while  the  apparent  movements  of  sun,  moon, 
and  planets  within  the  celestial  sphere  are  explained 
by  the  supposition  that  the  moon  revolves  around  the 
earth,  and  that  the  earth  and  the  other  planets  revolve 
around  the  sun. 

In  two  important  respects  the  new  theory,  as  an- 
nounced by  Copernicus,  possessed  greater  probability 
than  the  Ptolemaic.  In  the  first  place,  the  constitution 
of  the  solar  system  which  it  afforded  was  more  simple. 
Copernicus  was,  indeed,  still  under  the  dominion  of 
the  old  notion  that  the  symmetry  and  order  of  the 
universe  required  that  the  planets  should  move  in  cir- 
cular orbits  and  with  uniform  velocity.    He  was  there- 

23 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

fore  compelled  to  use  the  device  of  epicycles  to  some 
extent  in  order  to  formulate  the  apparent  irregularities 
in  the  planetary  movements.  He  was,  nevertheless, 
able  to  make  a  decidedly  simpler  scheme  than  the 
Ptolemaic. 

A  second  great  advantage  of  the  Copernican  system 
was  that  it  gave  a  meaning  to  the  coincidences  be- 
tween the  periodic  times  of  the  planets  and  that  of 
the  sun.  The  Ptolemaic  system,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, made  Mercury  and  Venus  revolve  in  their  re- 
spective deferents  in  exactly  one  year.  This  coinci- 
dence, entirely  unmeaning  on  the  Ptolemaic  theory, 
was  at  once  explained  by  the  Copernican  theory.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Copernican  theory,  the  orbits  of  Mer- 
cury and  Venus  lie  between  the  earth's  orbit  and  the 
sun;  hence  the  apparent  eastward  movement  of  these 
planets  in  company  with  the  sun  is  due  simply  to  the 
revolution  of  the  earth  itself  around  the  sun.  In  like 
manner,  the  Ptolemaic  astronomy  had  assumed  the 
revolution  of  Mars,  Jupiter,  and  Saturn  in  their  re- 
spective epicycles  to  be  accomplished  in  one  year.  As 
the  orbits  of  these  planets,  according  to  the  Copernican 
system,  lie  outside  the  orbit  of  the  earth,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  main  fact  of  their  apparent  eastward  move- 
ment is  due  to  their  own  revolution  around  the  sun, 
while  the  chief  apparent  irregularity  in  their  move- 
ment is  due  to  the  motion  of  the  earth  around  the  sun, 
and  must,  therefore,  necessarily  have  an  annual  period. 
A  theory  that  explains  remarkable  coincidences  in  the 
phenomena  to  which  it  relates,  has  obviously  a  vast 

24 


Galileo 

advantage  over  a  theory  that  leaves  such  coincidences 
unexplained. 

Early  in  the  seventeenth  century  two  most  impor- 
tant observations  were  made  which  greatly  strength- 
ened the  Copernican  astronomy.  The  telescope  was 
invented  in  or  about  the  year  1609,  and  in  16 10  Gali- 
leo availed  himself  of  the  newly  invented  instrument 
to  make  two  discoveries  of  immense  theoretical  im- 
portance. The  first  was  the  discovery  of  the  moons 
of  Jupiter.  The  observation  of  a  group  of  satellites 
revolving  around  that  planet  was  obviously  a  strong 
confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  Copernicus  that  the 
moon  accompanies  the  earth  as  a  satellite  in  its  path 
around  the  sun.  The  other  discovery  made  in  the 
same  year  afforded  even  more  conclusive  proof  of  the 
superiority  of  the  Copernican  to  the  Ptolemaic  system. 
Galileo  found  that  Venus  reveals  to  the  telescope  a 
series  of  phases  like  those  of  the  moon,  and  that  at 
times  the  visible  illuminated  surface  of  the  planet  is 
much  more  than  a  semicircle.  Since,  according  to  the 
Ptolemaic  astronomy,  the  orbits  of  Mercury  and  Ve- 
nus were  situated  between  the  earth  and  the  orbit  of 
the  sun,  and  their  revolution  in  their  respective  def- 
erents was  accomplished  in  the  same  time  as  the 
revolution  of  the  sun,  those  planets  must  always  be 
nearly  in  the  line  joining  the  earth  and  the  sun,  as 
shown  in  Fig.  i.  It  was  obvious,  therefore,  that,  if 
they  were  opaque  bodies  visible  only  by  reflected  sun- 
light, the  illuminated  portion  of  the  disk  of  the  plan- 
et, as  seen  from  the  earth,  could  never  be  as  much 

25 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

as  a  semicircle.  By  the  Copernican  system,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  planets  revolving  around  the  sun  in 
orbits  interior  to  that  of  the  earth  must  sometimes  be 


Fig.  1. — Earth,  Venus,  and  Sun,  according  to  the  Ptolemaic  theory. 
E^  earth;  V,  Venus;  5,  sun;  dd' ,  deferent;  ee\  epicycle. 

between  the  earth  and  the  sun,  and  sometimes  beyond 
the  sun,  as  shown  in  Fig.  2.  The  discovery  of  the 
gibbous  aspect  of  Venus  was,  accordingly,  a  well-nigh 
conclusive  proof  of  the  falsity  of  the  Ptolemaic  system. 
Copernicus,  as  we  have  seen,  still  clung  to  the  old 
26 


Kepler 

notion  of  circular  orbits.  The  honor  of  the  discovery 
of  the  actual  form  of  the  planetary  orbits  belongs  to 
Kepler.  In  1609  ^^^  formulated  the  two  propositions 
which  have  since  been  known  as  the  first  and  the  sec- 
ond law  of  planetary  movements:    namely,  first,  that 


Fig.  2. — Earth,  Venus,  and  Sun,  according  to  the  Copernican 
theory.  The  aspect  of  Venus,  in  the  part  of  its  orbit  in 
which  it  is  here  shown,  would  be  gibbous. 

the  orbit  of  a  planet  is  an  ellipse  with  the  sun  at  one 
of  the  foci ;  second,  that  the  radius  vector  describes 
equal  areas  in  equal  times.  In  the  discovery  of  these 
two  laws,  respectively,  the  two  venerable  fictions  of 

27 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

circular  motion  and  uniform  velocity  were  abandoned. 
But  these  laws,  as  discovered  and  formulated  by  Kep- 
ler, involved  no  more  of  dynamical  significance  than 
the  conceptions  which  they  displaced.  The  ellipses  of 
Kepler  were  as  purely  formal  and  geometrical,  and  as 
destitute  of  any  dynamical  significance,  as  the  eccen- 
trics and  epicycles  of  Hipparchus  and  Ptolemy.  The 
problem  of  Kepler  was  in  its  essence  the  same  as  that 
of  Hipparchus — to  imagine  a  curved  path  along  which 
a  planet  might  move  in  accordance  with  some  definitely 
formulable  law,  so  as  to  present  the  apparent  move- 
ments actually  observed.  But  observational  astron- 
omy had  made  great  advances  since  the  time  of  Hip- 
parchus. The  Danish  astronomer,  Tycho  Brahe,  in 
particular,  had  determined  the  positions  of  the  planets 
with  much  greater  accuracy  than  before;  and  Kepler 
had  worked  with  him  especially  in  the  study  of  the 
planet  Mars.  With  wonderful  fertility  of  conjecture, 
Kepler  tried  various  combinations  of  circles,  endeavor- 
ing in  vain  to  get  a  satisfactory  formulation  of  the 
facts  then  known  in  regard  to  the  positions  of  Mars. 
At  length  the  idea  occurred  to  him  to  try  an  ellipse  in- 
stead of  a  circle.  First  he  put  the  sun  at  the  center 
of  his  hypothetical  ellipse;  and,  when  that  failed  to 
reach  a  satisfactory  result,  he  conceived  the  idea  of 
putting  the  sun  at  the  focus.  He  had  reached  at  last 
a  conjecture  which  could  be  verified.  His  final  hy- 
pothesis had  become  a  law  of  nature,  and  the  elliptic 
form  of  the  planetary  orbits  has  been  ever  since  one 
of  the  undisputed  truths  of  science. 

28 


Newton 

Ten  years  later  Kepler  announced  his  third  law: 
namely,  that  the  squares  of  the  periodic  times  of  the 
planets  are  proportional  to  the  cubes  of  their  mean  dis- 
tances from  the  sun. 

Thus  far  astronomical  theory  had  been  purely  geo- 
metrical, but  the  time  had  nearly  come  for  astronomy 
to  become  a  dynamic  science.  Before  this  could  be 
done,  however,  there  was  need  of  a  preparation  to  be 
effected  by  the  progress  of  related  sciences.  On  the 
one  hand,  there  was  need  of  a  fuller  knowledge  of  the 
principles  of  mechanics.  Among  the  physicists  of  the 
seventeenth  century  by  whose  labors  this  work  was 
accomplished,  an  eminent  place  belongs  to  Galileo, 
whose  work  as  a  physicist  was  scarcely  second  in  im- 
portance to  his  work  as  an  astronomer.  There  was 
need,  too,  of  a  more  effective  mathematical  method 
for  the  solution  of  the  extremely  complex  geometrical 
problems  presented  by  the  movements  of  the  heavenly 
bodies ;  and  this  was  furnished  in  the  invention  of  the 
differential  and  integral  calculus,  achieved  simulta- 
neously by  Newton  and  Leibnitz. 

With  the  knowledge  of  physics  which  had  been  ac- 
cumulated earlier  in  the  century,  and  with  the  power- 
ful mathematical  apparatus  which  he  himself  had  in- 
vented, Newton  was  ready  to  render  the  closing  years 
of  the  seventeenth  century  illustrious  by  a  discovery 
which  has  probably  been,  in  its  influence  upon  the 
course  of  human  thought,  the  most  important  single 
discovery  in  the  history  of  science.  Newton's  epoch- 
making  work,   the  ''Philosophicc  Naturalis  Principia 

20 


The  Extension  of  the  Univ^erse  in  Space 

Mafhematica/'  was  published  in  1686  and  1687.  He 
sliowed  that,  on  the  supposition  that  the  planets  are  at- 
tracted to  the  sun  by  a  central  force  whose  intensity 
varies  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  distance,  the  three 
laws  of  Kepler — the  elliptical  orbits,  the  description  of 
equal  areas  by  the  radius  vector  in  equal  times,  and  the 
proportion  between  the  squares  of  the  periodic  times 
and  the  cubes  of  the  mean  distances — would  follow  as 
necessary  consequences.  Kepler's  laws  were  no  longer 
simply  the  ingenious  solution  of  a  geometrical  prob- 
lem; they  had  become  an  expression  of  the  dynamic 
constitution  of  the  universe. 

But  what  is  that  force  by  which  the  sun  attracts  the 
planets  to  itself?  A  conjectural  answer  to  that  ques- 
tion, involving  a  generalization  sublime  in  its  scope, 
suggested  itself  to  the  mind  of  Newton  twenty  years 
before  the  publication  of  his  great  work.  The  most 
familiar  of  all  physical  facts  is  the  tendency  of  heavy 
bodies  unsupported  to  fall  to  the  earth.  This  tendency 
may  be  reasonably  formulated  as  a  mutual  attraction 
between  the  earth  and  those  bodies.  In  Newton's 
mind,  then,  arose  the  question.  May  not  this  same  force 
which  is  thus  manifested  on  the  earth  be  the  force 
which  holds  the  planets  in  their  orbits  ?  But  a  brilliant 
conjecture  is  of  little  importance  in  the  history  of  sci- 
ence, unless  it  can  be  tested  and  verified.  To  that  task 
Newton  addressed  himself.  The  moon  was  known  to 
be  distant  from  the  earth  about  sixty  times  the  earth's 
radius.  It  was  possible  then  to  estimate  what  would 
be  the  intensity  of  terrestrial  gravitation  at  the  dis- 

30 


Universal  Gravitation 

tance  of  the  moon.  Knowing  by  experiment  how  far 
a  body  near  the  earth  falls  in  a  second  or  in  a  minute, 
a  mathematician  could  calculate  how  far  a  body  at  the 
distance  of  the  moon  ought  to  fall  in  a  second  or  in  a 


Fig.  3. — The  fall  of  the  moon.  In  passing  from  m  to  m\  the  moon 
falls  through  the  distance  nib  or  am'. 

minute  in  obedience  to  the  same  force.  According  to 
the  primary  laws  of  motion,  a  moving  body  not  sub- 
ject to  an  external  force  will  continue  to  move  in  a 
straight  line  and  with  uniform  velocity.     The  moon, 

31 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

then,  starting  from  any  point  in  its  orbit,  should 
move  in  the  direction  of  a  tangent,  unless  acted  up- 
on by  some  force  drawing  it  to  the  earth.  The  dis- 
tance, then  to  which  the  arc  of  the  orbit  has  diverged 
from  the  tangent,  after  the  lapse  of  a  minute,  or 
any  other  definite  interval  of  time,  will  be  the 
distance  through  which  the  moon  has  fallen.  New- 
ton accordingly  determined  that,  if  the  moon  was 
drawn  toward  the  earth  by  the  same  force  by  which 
heavy  bodies  fall,  and  if  that  force  varied  according  to 
the  law  of  inverse  squares,  the  moon  ought  to  fall 
somewhat  more  than  fifteen  feet  in  one  minute.  The 
study  of  the  actual  positions  of  the  moon  showed,  how- 
ever, a  fall  of  only  thirteen  feet  per  minute.  The  dis- 
crepancy was  too  great  to  pass  unnoticed,  though  the 
two  magnitudes  were  sufiiciently  near  to  equality  to 
suggest  the  hope  that  the  discrepancy  might  yet  be  ex- 
plained, and  the  magnificent  hypothesis  find  its  verifi- 
cation. Newton  laid  aside  the  work,  and  waited  for 
more  light.  In  due  season  the  light  came.  Newton's 
estimate  of  the  length  of  the  earth's  radius  was  based 
upon  a  determination  of  60  miles  for  the  length  of  a 
degree  of  a  great  circle  of  the  earth.  That  estimate  is 
now  known  to  be  considerably  too  small.  In  1669  and 
1670  Pi  card  made  a  more  accurate  measurement  of  a 
meridian  arc  than  had  before  been  made,  but  not  until 
several  years  later  did  Newton  become  aware  of  the  re- 
sults of  that  measurement.  The  age  of  daily  newspa- 
pers and  weekly  scientific  journals  had  not  then  arrived. 
Picard's  determination  made  the  radius  of  the  earth 

32 


Law  of  Gravitation  Verified 

about  500  miles  longer  than  Newton  had  supposed. 
The  distance  of  the  moon,  which  was  known  to  be  about 
sixty  times  the  earth's  radius,  and  the  dimensions  of 
the  moon's  orbit,  were  of  course  increased  in  the  same 
ratio.  Reviewing  his  calculations  in  the  light  of  this 
new  knowledge  as  to  the  distance  of  the  moon,  New- 
ton found  the  distance  between  the  orbit  and  its  tan- 
gent to  correspond  with  the  theory.  Thus  was  verified 
the  magnificent  conjecture  which  identified  the  force 
tliat  holds  the  planets  in  their  orbits  with  the  force 
whose  effect  is  seen  in  the  familiar  phenomenon  of  the 
fall  of  heavy  bodies  to  the  earth;  and  thus  was  de- 
veloped the  far-reaching  induction  of  universal  gravi- 
tation— a  mutual  attraction  subsisting  between  all  par- 
ticles and  all  masses  of  matter,  varying  directly  as  the 
products  of  the  masses,  and  inversely  as  the  squares 
of  the  distances.* 

Newton's  discovery  of  universal  gravitation  has 
a  twofold  significance  in  the  history  of  science.  It 
was  the  completion  and  culmination  of  that  series 
of  astronomical  discoveries  by  which  the  relative  posi- 

*  It  is  well,  however,  at  this  point  to  notice  that  the  Newtonian  conception 
of  universal  gravitation  j^ives  no  really  causal  explanation  of  the  movements  of 
the  planets,  since  we  know  nothing  of  the  nature  of  the  supposed  force.  (See 
page  323.)  If  we  strip  from  the  connotation  of  the  word  "  force"  the  meta- 
physical notion  of  causation,  and  define  force  not  as  the  cause  of  motion  or  of 
change  of  motion,  but  as  the  "product  of  mass  into  acceleration  "  (Pearson, 
Grammar  of  Science^  2d  edition,  p.  304),  the  Newtonian  conception  of  planet- 
ary movement  becomes  as  purely  mathematical  as  the  Keplerian.  "Whether, 
with  Kepler,  the  form  of  the  orbit  of  a  planet  and  the  velocity  at  each  point  is 
defined,  or,  with  Newton,  the  force  at  each  point,  both  are  really  only  differ- 
ent methods  of  describing  the  facts  ;  and  Newton's  merit  is  only  the  discovery 
that  the  description  of  the  motion  of  the  celestial  bodies  is  especially  simple  if 
the  second  dilTerential  of  their  coordinates  in  respect  of  time  is  given."  Boltz- 
mann.  On  the  Methods  0/  Theoretical  Physics,  in  London,  Edinburgh,  and 
Dublin  Philosophical  Magazine,  5th  series,  vol,  xxxvi,  p.  40 ;  cited  in  Ward, 
Naturalism  and  Agttosticism,  vol.  i,  p.  81. 

33 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

tions  and  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies  were  de- 
termined. It  was  also  the  beginning  of  a  series  of 
discoveries  by  which  has  been  developed  the  most  com- 
prehensive and  most  important  of  all  the  characteristic 
ideas  of  science,  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  universe. 
The  progress  of  astronomical  science  led  to  the  rec- 
ognition of  a  magnitude  of  the  solar  system  vastly 
greater  than  had  been  imagined.  The  sun  became,  in- 
stead of  a  mere  lantern  carried  around  the  earth,  an 
orb  of  colossal  size  situated  at  an  immense  distance 
from  the  earth.  In  later  times  the  discovery  of  the 
planets  Uranus  and  Neptune,  visible  only  to  the  tele- 
scope, and  far  more  distant  from  the  sun  than  any  of 
those  known  to  the  ancients,  has  vastly  extended  the 
magnitude  of  the  solar  system.  But  it  early  became 
manifest  that  the  dimensions  of  the  solar  system  are 
utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  dimensions 
of  the  whole  universe.  The  diameter  of  the  earth's  orbit 
is  about  186,000,000  miles.  It  was  a  natural  sugges- 
tion that  so  extensive  a  movement  of  the  earth  itself 
should  make  a  perceptible  change  in  the  direction  of 
the  stars.  It  was,  however,  impossible,  with  the  means 
that  were  available  for  observational  astronomy  in 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  to  prove  any 
change  in  the  apparent  direction  of  a  star  as  viewed,  at 
an  interval  of  six  months,  from  opposite  sides  of  the 
earth's  orbit.  If  the  lines  drawn  to  a  star  from  the 
extremities  of  a  base  line  of  about  186,000,000  miles 
are  sensibly  parallel,  that  star  must  be  distant  indeed. 
It  was  not  until  the  close  of  the  first  third  of  the 

34 


Distance  of  the  Stars 

nineteenth  century  that  astronomical  observation  had 
become  so  refined  as  to  render  possible  a  reliable  deter- 
mination of  the  value  of  the  angle  between  the  direc- 
tions of  a  star  as  viewed  from  opposite  sides  of  the 
earth's  orbit — in  technical  language,  the  annual  par- 
allax of  the  star.  Before  the  close  of  that  century  ap- 
proximate determinations  were  made  of  the  distances 
of  a  considerable  number  of  the  brightest  and  pre- 
sumably nearest  of  the  fixed  stars.  The  nearest  of 
these  bodies  has  been  shown  to  be  distant  from  the 
earth  more  than  270,000  times  the  distance  of  the  sun. 
The  great  majority  of  the  stars  are  so  immensely  dis- 
tant that  the  most  exquisite  refinements  of  measure- 
ment fail  to  detect  any  change  in  their  direction. 

As  the  universe  grows  larger  to  human  thought,  the 
earth  grows  relatively  smaller.  It  has  become  a  mere 
speck  in  the  infinite  vastness  of  the  universe. 

The  series  of  great  astronomical  discoveries  whose 
history  we  have  sketched  was  not  achieved  without 
theological  opposition.  Before  the  epoch  of  great 
maritime  discoveries,  the  belief  in  the  sphericity  of  the 
earth  had  been  tolerated  in  the  church,  but  had  been 
regarded  with  some  suspicion  as  not  strictly  orthodox. 
The  Copernican  doctrine  of  the  revolution  of  the  earth 
around  the  sun  was  regarded  in  many  quarters  as  flatly 
contradictory  to  the  Bible,  and  therefore  destructive 
of  Christian  faith.  For  surely  it  was  written,  ''Thou. 
hast  established  the  earth,  and  it  abideth"* ;  and,  the 
sun  "is  as  a  bridegroom  coming  out  of  his  chamber, 

*  Psalm  cxix,  90. 

35 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

and  rejoiceth  as  a  strong  man  to  run  a  race."*  And 
when  Newton  announced  his  discovery  of  universal 
gravitation,  he  was  charged  in  some  quarters  with 
essential  atheism  in  placing  a  mathematical  formula 
instead  of  the  power  of  God  in  supreme  control  over 
the  universe. 

It  lies  aside  from  our  purpose  to  enter  into  any  de- 
tails of  the  history  of  persecution  and  conflict.  The 
history  of  the  persecution  of  Galileo  is  a  shameful 
story;  yet  our  sympathy  with  "the  starry  Galileo  and 
his  woes"  must  always  be  moderated  by  the  fact  that 
his  character  as  a  man  was  far  less  noble  than  his 
character  as  a  scientist.  He  was  conspicuously  want- 
ing in  those  characteristics  of  tender  consideration  for 
the  opinions  of  others  and  steadfast  loyalty  to  his  own 
convictions  which  mark  the  character  of  the  ideal  re- 
former. How  far  his  persecutions  were  the  conse- 
quence of  his  own  infelicities  of  temper  we  need  not 
specifically  inquire.  It  is  worth  while  to  notice  in  pass- 
ing that  all  the  astronomers  whose  names  we  have 
had  occasion  to  mention,  from  Copernicus  to  Newton, 
were  Christians.  Whatever  conflict  there  was,  was 
between  Christians  and  Christians,  not  between  Chris- 
tians and  pagans  or  atheists. f  Copernicus  was  a  de- 
vout and  faithful  parish  priest,  whose  time  and  thought 
and  care  were  mainly  given  to  his  humble  flock.  There 
are  few  more  pathetic  pictures  in  the  history  of  science 
than  that  of  the  aged  priest  on  his  deathbed  receiving 

*  Psalm  xix,  5. 

t  Fisher,  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Beliefs  revised  edition,  p.  439. 

36 


Founders  of  New  Astronomy  were  Christians 

the  first  printed  copy  of  the  book  which  was  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  era  in  human  thought,  but  which  he 
himself  in  the  last  m.oments  of  life  could  not  open,  and 
expressing  his  Christian  resignation  in  the  words  of 
Simeon,  ''Nunc  dimittis  serviim  tuitm,  domine/'  The 
spirit  of  Kepler  was  profoundly  religious,  and  the 
oft-quoted  words  which  he  uttered  when  the  elliptic 
orbits  of  the  planets  shaped  themselves  before  his  men- 
tal vision,  "O  God,  I  think  thy  thoughts  after  thee," 
are  worthy  to  be  the  motto  of  devout  students  in 
every  age.  Galileo,  though  showing  by  no  means  the 
highest  moral  tone,  was  a  professed  believer  in  Chris- 
tianity. There  were  not  wanting  in  high  places  in  the 
hierarchy  of  Rome  men  of  enlightened  spirit  like  Car- 
dinal Baronius,  the  friend  of  Galileo,  who  is  credited  ^ 
with  the  epigram.matic  statement  that  the  Bible  was 
given  to  teach  us  how  to  go  to  heaven,  not  to  teach  , 
us  how  the  heavens  go.  Had  all  ecclesiastics  then 
and  in  later  ages  been  equally  wise  and  tolerant,  many 
disgraceful  chapters  in  the  history  of  the  church  might 
have  been  left  unwritten. 

But,  while  it  is  not  our  task  to  enter  into  details 
of  the  history  of  conflict  and  persecution,  it  is  our  duty 
to  inquire  what  was  the  ultimate  effect  of  these  scien- 
tific discoveries  upon  Christian  faith.  What  changes 
were  made  in  theological  beliefs  ?  What  did  the  church 
learn  from  these  great  discoveries? 

The  revelation  of  the  measureless  vastness  of  the 
universe  certainly  gives  a  new  intensity  of  meaning  to 
the  old  question  of  the  Psalmist:    "When  I  consider 

37 


The  Extension  op^  the  Universe  in  Space 

thy  heavens,  the  work  of  thy  fingers,  the  moon  and 
the  stars  which  thou  hast  ordained,  what  is  man  that 
thou  art  mindful  of  him,  and  the  son  of  man  that  thou 
visitest  him?"  And  yet,  after  all,  the  answer  to  that 
question  is  not  materially  changed.  If  we  believe  in 
a  God  of  infinite  wisdom  and  infinite  love,  we  can  see 
no  reason  why  he  may  not  be  duly  thoughtful  of  the 
interests  of  every  one  of  his  creatures,  though  his  em- 
pire be  more  vast  than  men  had  dreamed,  and  though 
the  number  of  its  citizens  can  be  reckoned  in  no  human 
census.  We  suffered  no  lack  of  love  and  care  from 
our  parents,  when  our  younger  brothers  or  sisters  were 
born  into  our  homes.  We  can  trust  the  love  and  provi- 
dence of  the  Heavenly  Father,  though  the  number  of 
his  children,  in  his  home  of  many  mansions,  be  vaster 
than  we  had  dreamed. 

One  thing  which  the  church  learned  from  these  dis- 
coveries was  that  in  the  Bible  the  phenomena  of  na- 
ture are  spoken  of,  not  in  the  language  of  science, 
but  in  terms  of  purely  phenomenal  description.  The 
church,  indeed,  did  not  learn  this  lesson  as  thoroughly 
as  it  ought  to  have  learned  it,  and  did  not  adhere  to  it 
consistently  in  later  times.  Had  it  done  so,  some  of 
the  later  so-called  conflicts  of  science  and  religion  need 
never  have  occurred.  Yet  it  was  true,  in  general,  that 
the  church  did  learn  from  these  astronomical  discov- 
eries to  recognize  that,  in  regard  to  the  affairs  of  na- 
ture, the  Biblical  writers  spoke  the  language  of  com- 
mon life  and  not  the  language  of  science;  and,  when 
that  simple  truth  was  recognized,  of  course  there  was 

38 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

no  conflict  between  the  Copernican  astronomy  and  the 
BibHcal  statements  of  the  sun's  daily  race  and  the  es- 
tabhshment  of  the  earth  forever. 

The  church  might  well  have  learned  that  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  in  regard  to  other  subjects  than  the 
facts  of  nature  is  not  technical.  The  writers  of  the 
Bible  were  no  more  writing  systematic  treatises  on 
theology  and  psychology  and  ethics,  than  they  were 
writing  systematic  treatises  on  astronomy;  and,  if 
the  church  could  only  have  learned  that  the  language 
of  the  Bible  was  never  technical,  but  always  the  lan- 
guage of  common  life,  it  would  have  escaped  a  good 
deal  of  pernicious  and  unsound  theology. 

The  most  important  fact  in  connection  with  these 
astronomical  discoveries,  in  the  sphere  of  religious 
thought,  was  the  simple  fact  that  Christianity  did  sur- 
vive. Beliefs  hallowed  by  the  tradition  of  ages  and 
so  associated  with  Christian  doctrine  as  to  be  consid- 
ered integral  parts  of  Christianity,  were  shown  to  be 
false,  and  yet  Christianity  survived.  Men's  minds 
adjusted  themselves  to  the  new  beliefs,  and  the  es- 
sential doctrines  of  Christianity  appeared  no  less 
reasonable,  and  its  stores  of  moral  inspiration  and 
comfort  no  less  precious;  and  this  history  of  the 
survival  and  unimpaired  vitality  of  Christian  faith 
and  Christian  life  in  the  change  of  scientific  opin- 
ion had  its  lessons  for  future  ages.  In  later  times, 
when  science  said  that  the  universe,  instead  of 
being  created  in  six  days  six  thousand  years  ago, 
stretched  back  through  time  as  measureless  as  the  as- 

39 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Space 

tronomical  spaces,  or  when  science  said  that  the  uni- 
verse had  reached  its  present  condition,  not  by  a  series 
of  isolated  creative  fiats,  but  by  a  continuous  evolution, 
thoughtless  men  grew  merry  over  the  supposed  de- 
struction of  Christianity,  good  men  grew  pale  with 
terror  lest  the  faith  which  had  been  the  light  of  the 
world  should  go  out  in  darkness,  but  wise  men  said 
that  it  would  be  in  the  eighteenth  or  the  nineteenth 
century  as  it  was  in  the  sixteenth.  Christianity  sur- 
vived with  unimpaired  vigor  when  the  solid  earth  on 
which  it  had  stood  was  whirled  away  from  beneath  its 
feet.  It  is  not  likely  to  be  destroyed  by  the  discoveries 
of  our  age  or  of  any  age. 

40 


Ceaseless  Change 


IL — The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time* 

No  one  can  attentively  observe  the  phenomena  pre- 
sented by  almost  any  part  of  the  earth's  surface  with- 
out recognizing  the  fact  of  ceaseless  change.  In  all 
parts  of  the  world  where  winters  are  cold  enough  for 
extensive  frost  work,  a  pile  of  rock  fragments  may 
be  found  at  the  foot  of  every  cliff,  often  burying  the 
cliff  for  half  or  more  than  half  of  its  height.  These 
fragments  have  evidently  fallen  from  the  summit, 
from  which  they  have  been  shivered  by  the  expansion 
of  freezing  water  in  the  cracks  of  the  rock.  Most 
rivers  are  seen  to  be  more  or  less  turbid  with  the  sedi- 
ment which  they  are  carrying,  and  thus  on  slight  re- 
flection it  becomes  obvious  that  the  rivers  are  trans- 
porting the  continents  seaward.  When  rivers  recede 
into  their  ordinary  channels  after  their  periodical  or 
occasional  floods,  the  meadow  land  which  has  been 
overflowed  is  found  covered  with  a  film  of  mud  depos- 
ited in  the  inundation;  and  thus  it  is  seen  that  rivers 
have  not  only  a  destructive  but  also  a  constructive 
effect.  On  the  shore  of  the  ocean,  the  waves  may  be 
seen  in  some  places  to  be  tearing  rocks  to  pieces  and 
encroaching  upon  the  shore,  while  in  other  places  they 

*For  an  admirable  sketch  of  the  history  of  geology  from  ancient  times  to 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  see  Lyell,  Principles  of  Geology, 
ch.  ii-iv.  See  also  Geikie,  The  Founders  o/  Geology.  For  sketches  of  the 
more  recent  progress  of  geology,  see  Rice,  Twenty-five  Years  of  Scientific 
Progress.^  and  Other  Essays  ;  Le  Conte,  A  Century  of  Geology,  in  Popular 
Science  Monthly,  vol.  Ivi.  The  whole  subject  is  fully  treated  in  von  Zittel, 
History  of  Geology  and  Paloeontology. 

41 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

are  depositing  sand  in  beaches  and  reefs  and  spits, 
and  thus  extending  the  area  of  the  land.  In  many 
parts  of  the  earth,  streams  of  molten  rock  are  seen 
from  time  to  time  to  flow  forth  from  the  interior  and 
to  solidify  at  the  surface  as  sheets  of  crystalline  rock. 
Tremulous  movements  of  the  ground  are  felt  from 
time  to  time,  sometimes  so  insignificant  as  to  be  barely 
perceptible,  sometimes  so  violent  as  to  destroy  whole 
cities.  Not  infrequently,  after  an  earthquake,  con- 
siderable areas  are  observed  to  stand  permanently  at 
a  higher  or  at  a  lower  level  than  before.  Careful  ob- 
vServation  shows  that  along  many  stretches  of  coast  the 
land  appears  to  be  rising  and  emerging  from  the  sea, 
while  along  other  coasts  the  land  appears  to  be  sub- 
siding and  the  sea  encroaching  upon  it.  Thus  in  va- 
rious ways  the  idea  is  obviously  suggested  to  the 
thoughtful  observer  that  the  earth  is  undergoing  con- 
tinual change,  and  that  its  present  condition  and  as- 
pect are  the  result  of  a  series  of  changes  which  it  has 
been  experiencing  through  the  ages  of  the  past.  Even 
in  ancient  times  the  attention  of  thoughtful  men  was 
attracted  to  such  evidences  of  change  in  the  aspect  of 
the  earth,  and  several  of  the  Greek  philosophers  were 
led  by  such  considerations  to  tolerably  sound  views  in 
regard  to  many  subjects  in  dynamical  geology.  In 
this  respect  Pythagoras  is  especially  to  be  commended 
among  the  earlier  Greek  philosophers,  and  Aristotle 
among  the  later  ones. 

But  the  fact  of  change  is  easily  overlooked  by  the 
unobservant  and  the  ignorant,  because,  in  general,  the 

42 


Geological  Changes  Generally  Slow 

rate  of  geological  change  is  slow.  In  most  regions 
there  is  very  little  change  in  the  aspect  of  the  earth 
during  a  single  lifetime.  In  communities  less  migra- 
tory than  ours,  it  often  happened  that  a  man  lived 
to  old  age  in  the  same  house  in  which  he  had  been 
born ;  and  to  such  a  man  the  aspects  of  nature  around 
his  dwelling  would  be  in  general  substantially  the  same 
in  his  old  age  as  in  his  childhood.  In  front  of  the 
house,  the  old  man  might  see  the  same  river  running 
through  the  same  meadow  which  the  child  had  seen 
threescore  years  before,  and  the  same  hill  might  rise 
behind  the  house.  And  so  such  expressions  as  "the 
everlasting  hills"  became  proverbial  in  common  lan- 
guage and  in  literature. 

"Changeless  march  the  stars  above, 

Changeless  morn  succeeds  to  even, 
And  the  everlasting  hills 

Changeless  watch  the  changeless  heaven. 
See  the  rivers  how  they  run, 

Changeless,  to  a  changeless  sea." 

While  the  general  slowness  of  geological  change 
might  easily  lead  to  its  being  overlooked,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  theological  prejudices  operated  strongly 
toward  the  same  end.  The  Old  Testament,  which 
Christianity  inherited  from  Judaism,  seems  to  teach 
that  the  world  was  made  in  six  days,  by  a  series  of 
creative  fiats,  a  few  thousand  years  ago.  The  belief 
in  the  supposed  authority  of  that  teaching  tended  to 
deter  men  from  investigation  or  question  in  regard  to 
the  history  of  the  world.     It  is  noteworthy  that  the 

43 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

same  theological  prejudice  against  geological  investi- 
gation has  operated  among  Jews  and  Mohammedans, 
as  among  Christians;  and  substantially  all  of  scien- 
tific thought  since  the  fall  of  the  Museum  of  Alexan- 
dria belongs  to  nations  that  have  been  at  least  nominal 
adherents  of  these  three  great  religions. 

The  beginning  of  modern  investigation  and  discus- 
sion of  geological  subjects  was  in  Italy  in  the  earlier 
years  of  the  sixteenth  century.  Of  the  many  who 
make  their  pilgrimage  to  Milan  to  gaze  in  reverence 
upon  the  most  majestic  face  of  Christ  which  human 
art  has  ever  painted,  comparatively  few  know  that 
the  author  of  that  wondrous  painting  was  not  only  a 
painter,  but  a  poet,  mathematician,  engineer,  architect, 
and,  in  fact,  well-nigh  a  universal  genius.  Among  his 
many  employments,  Leonardo  da  Vinci  was  engaged 
in  some  of  the  earlier  years  of  the  sixteenth  century 
in  the  excavation  of  extensive  canals.  The  rocks 
through  which  those  excavations  were  made  contained 
a  great  abundance  of  fossil  shells,  and  Leonardo  was 
one  of  a  number  of  thoughtful  men  of  that  time  who 
were  sagacious  enough  to  recognize  that  those  fossils 
were  evidence  of  the  former  presence  of  a  sea  teeming 
with  marine  life,  where  cultivated  fields  and  populous 
cities  had  taken  its  place.  But  theological  prejudices 
stood  in  the  way  of  the  acceptance  of  an  inference  that 
seems  to  us  now  so  simple  and  obvious,  and  the  ob- 
servations of  Leonardo  and  others  were  the  beginning 
of  a  controversy  which  lasted  for  about  three  hundred 
years.     Not  till  about  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 

44 


The  Meaning  of  Fossils 

century  were  the  conclusions  of  the  geologists  generally 
acknowledged. 

These  three  hundred  years  of  energetic  and  often 
bitter  controversy  may  be  roughly  divided  into  two  not 
very  unequal  parts.  For  about  a  century  and  a  half 
the  question  mainly  discussed  was  whether  the  fossils 
found  in  the  rocks  were  really  the  remains  of  animals 
and  plants  which  had  once  lived  on  the  earth  or  in  the 
sea.  The  limits  of  the  present  discussion  will  not  per- 
mit us  to  trace  that  history  in  detail,  nor  to  set  forth 
at  length  the  particular  opinions  of  those  who  took 
part  in  the  discussion.  The  views  of  the  opposers  of 
geology  were  in  many  cases  fantastic  and  absurd.  The 
fossils  were  explained  as  mere  lusus  naturce — sports  of 
nature.  Nature  must  indeed  have  been  a  very  sportive 
sort  of  person  to  indulge  in  that  sort  of  recreation  so 
frequently.  Others  explained  the  fossils  as  being  due 
to  the  influence  of  the  stars,  and  the  stars  were  so  dis- 
tant that  it  was  not  easy  to  disprove  any  mysterious 
and  occult  potency  which  might  be  attributed  to  them. 
The  fossils,  again,  were  formed  by  the  fermentation 
of  a  materia  pinguis  in  the  earth,  though  it  is  needless 
to  say  that  the  existence  of  such  fatty  matter  was  a 
purely  gratuitous  hypothesis.  In  the  latter  part  of 
the  seventeenth  century  and  in  most  of  the  eighteenth, 
the  question  mainly  discussed  between  the  geologists 
and  their  opponents  was  whether,  on  the  assumption 
that  the  fossils  were  really  remains  of  animals  and 
plants,  the  strata  containing  them  might  not  have  been 
all  deposited  in  the  Noachian  Deluge.     According  to 

45 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

the  narrative  of  Genesis,  after  forty  days  of  rain,  the 
waters  covered  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth,  in- 
cluding the  highest  mountains,  for  several  months,  and 
all  terrestrial  animals  were  destroyed  excepting  those 
which  had  found  refuge  with  Noah  in  the  ark.  Of 
course,  the  notion  seems  to  us  now  absurd  that  accu- 
mulations of  strata  miles  in  thickness,  bearing  in  the 
structure  of  many  portions  evidences  of  gradual  depo- 
sition in  tranquil  waters,  including  manifold  alterna- 
tions of  different  kinds  of  material,  and  containing  fos- 
sils characteristic  of  each  stratum  as  definitely  sorted 
as  in  the  drawers  of  a  cabinet,  could  have  been  de- 
posited in  a  few  months  by  a  tumultuous  deluge,  even 
on  the  assumption  that  there  was  a  universal  deluge. 
And  it  seems  strange  indeed  that  it  should  have  re- 
quired more  than  a  century  of  discussion  to  dispose  of 
such  a  theory. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  we 
find  that  the  obvious  inferences  which  enlightened 
thinkers  had  drawn  from  the  study  of  the  fossiliferous 
strata  three  hundred  years  before,  had  come  to  be  gen- 
erally accepted,  and  the  foundations  had  been  laid  for 
all  the  leading  divisions  of  geological  science. 

Hutton's  "Theory  of  the  Earth,"  published  in  the 
Edinburgh  Philosophical  Transactions  in  1788,  and 
issued  in  somewhat  enlarged  form  as  an  independent 
work  in  1795,  is  recognized  as  being  in  an  important 
sense  the  beginning  of  the  modern  development  of 
dynamical  geology.  A  few  sentences  from  this  work 
will  clearly  indicate  its  point  of  view  and  the  spirit  in 

46 


HUTTON 

which  geological  phenomena  were  treated:  ''The  ruins 
of  an  older  world  are  visible  in  the  present  structure 
of  our  planet ;  and  the  strata  which  now  compose  our 
continents  have  been  once  beneath  the  sea,  and  were 
formed  out  of  the  w^aste  of  pre-existing  continents. 
The  same  forces  are  still  destroying  by  chemical  de- 
composition or  mechanical  violence  even  the  hardest 
rocks,  and  transporting  materials  to  the  sea,  where 
they  are  spread  out,  and  form  strata  analogous  to 
those  of  more  ancient  date.  Though  loosely  deposited 
along  the  bottom  of  the  ocean,  they  become  afterwards 
altered  and  consolidated  by  volcanic  heat,  and  then 
heaved  up,  fractured,  and  contorted.-'  This  general 
conception  of  the  agencies  of  dynamical  geology  is 
substantially  that  which  has  found  illustration  and  con- 
firmation in  all  the  geological  study  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  More  clearly  than  any  previous  writer.  Hut- 
ton  taught  the  fundamental  truth  of  dynamical  geol- 
ogy, that  geological  effects  are  to  be  explained  by 
causes  now  in  operation,  and  not  by  unknown  hy- 
pothetical actions.  When  a  river  was  seen  flowing 
in  the  bottom  of  a  deep  and  rocky  gorge,  instead  of 
assuming,  with  the  unthinking  multitudes,  that  the 
gorge  had  existed  unchanged  since  the  creation,  or, 
with  some  of  the  theologians  of  his  time,  that  it  was 
formed  by  the  violent  rending  of  the  rocks  in  the  con- 
vulsions that  the  earth  experienced  when  it  was  cursed 
for  Adam's  sin,  Hutton  showed  that  the  gorge  had  been 
formed  gradually  by  the  friction  of  the  waters  of  the 
stream  itself,  and  particularly  by  the  abrasion  of  the 

47 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

sand  and  pebbles  which  its  rapid  current  swept  onward 
toward  the  sea.  While  Hutton  recognized  the  destruc- 
tive and  constructive  action  of  atmospheric  and  aque- 
ous agencies,  he  also  recognized,  though  his  knowl- 
edge of  them  was  less  complete,  agencies  of  a  different 
sort.  He  held  rightly  that  many  of  the  crystalline 
rocks  had  been  formed  by  solidification  from  a  state 
of  fusion  like  the  lavas  of  volcanoes,  and  he  held  to 
the  agency  of  subterranean  forces  in  the  disturbances 
of  the  crust  of  the  globe.  While  the  geological  theo- 
rizing of  later  time  has  been  largely  an  expansion  and 
•development  of  the  ideas  of  Hutton,  we  shall  see  here- 
after that  in  one  important  respect  his  views  were 
seriously  erroneous,  and  have  been  corrected  by  larger 
knowledge  and  maturer  thought. 

While  Hutton  was  laying  the  foundations  of  dy- 
namical geology,  other  geologists  were  making  a  begin- 
ning in  other  lines  of  geological  investigation.  It  was 
in  1790  that  William  Smith  published  his  "Tabular 
View  of  the  British  Strata,''  and  in  18 15  that  he  pub- 
lished his  geological  map  of  England.  This  was  the 
first  example  of  the  detailed  stratigraphical  survey  of 
a  considerable  region  of  country.  It  may  reasonably 
be  regarded  as  a  providential  arrangement  in  the  his- 
tory of  science  that  the  first  extensive  stratigraphical 
study  should  have  been  in  England.  There  is  perhaps 
no  other  region  in  the  world  where  the  conditions  are 
so  favorable  for  the  beginning  of  that  branch  of  geo- 
logical study.  In  a  comparatively  small  area,  and  in 
a  country  whose  high  state  of  civilization  made  roads 

48 


William  Smith 

and  other  facilities  of  travel  as  good  as  could  be  found 
anywhere,  almost  the  whole  series  of  fossiliferous 
strata,  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  is  displayed  in 
a  fashion  remarkably  simple.  A  large  part  of  the  se- 
ries of  geological  formations  extend  in  roughly  par- 
allel bands  across  the  country  from  northeast  to  south- 
west, each  dipping  southeastward  under  the  next  later 
formation;  so  that  the  traveler  who  journeys  from 
the  north  of  Wales  southeastward  across  the  island, 
traverses  in  regular  succession  almost  the  whole  se- 
ries. Smith's  study  of  the  succession  of  the  English 
formations  and  the  characteristic  fossils  by  which  each 
formation  was  marked,  became  a  standard  with  which 
the  rocks  of  other  countries  could  be  compared,  in 
tracing  the  chronological  succession  of  geological 
events  throughout  the  world. 

William  Smith  was  not  a  zoologist.  He  valued  fos- 
sils simply  as  labels  by  which  the  different  formations 
in  the  geological  series  could  be  identified;  and  pre- 
cisely that  mode  of  study  of  the  fossils  is  perfectly 
legitimate,  and  must  always  be  important  to  the  geol- 
ogist. The  characteristic  fossils  are  the  marks  by 
which  the  strata  of  different  ages  are  to  be  distin- 
guished. But  there  is  a  zoological  and  botanical,  as 
well  as  a  geological,  use  of  fossils.  Fossils  are  not 
only  marks  of  the  different  geological  formations ;  they 
are  records  of  the  history  of  life,  and  are  therefore 
of  profound  significance  in  biological  science.  The  be- 
ginning of  the  study  of  fossils  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  biologist  was  made  by  Georges  Cuvier.     Before 

49 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

turning  his  attention  to  the  study  of  fossils,  Cuvier  had 
made  himself  eminent  as  a  zoologist  and  comparative 
anatomist.  He  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
structure  of  both  vertebrate  and  invertebrate  animals. 
In  his  study  of  living  animals,  he  had  learned  to  rec- 
ognize the  correlations  that  subsist  between  different 
parts  of  an  organism,  whereby,  from  the  knowledge 
of  certain  parts,  inferences  more  or  less  probable  may 
be  drawn  in  regard  to  the  structure  of  other  parts  of 
the  body.  His  knowledge  of  comparative  anatomy  en- 
abled him  to  interpret  the  significance  of  more  or  less 
fragmentary  fossil  skeletons.  Before  his  time  scarcely 
any  attempt  had  been  made  to  place  the  animals 
and  plants  whose  fossil  remains  were  found  in  the 
rocks  in  any  definite  relation  to  the  zoological  and 
botanical  classifications  derived  from  the  study  of  liv- 
ing organisms.  There  had  been  the  long  discussion 
as  to  whether  the  fossils  were  really  remains  of  living 
beings  or  not;  and  William  Smith  and  other  geol- 
ogists had  shown  that  fossils  could  be  used  as  a  means 
of  recognition  of  particular  formations  in  the  geolog- 
ical series.  But  Cuvier  showed  that  the  animals  and 
plants  represented  by  fossils  could  be  classified  zoolog- 
ically and  botanically  and  assigned  to  their  place  in 
the  systematic  series.  It  was  in  1796  that  he  gave  the 
first  illustration  of  this  mode  of  study  of  fossils  in  his 
research  on  the  huge  fossil  bones  found  in  Siberia,  be- 
longing to  the  mammoth  (Elephas  primigenius), 
which,  as  we  now  know,  ranged  over  most  of  northern 
Asia  and  Europe  and  North  America.     The  study  of 

50 


CUVIER 

these  fossil  bones  showed  that  they  were  truly  the 
bones  of  an  elephant,  yet  not  the  bones  of  either  the 
Indian  or  the  African  species  of  elephant.  The  bones 
accordingly  represented  an  extinct  species,  yet  one  so 
closely  related  to  well-known  living  species  that  it 
could  be  classed  in  the  same  genus.  In  1804,  he  pub- 
lished the  first  of  his  classical  series  of  memoirs  on 
the  fossils  of  the  Paris  Basin.  His  residence  in  Paris 
was  perhaps  as  providential  in  its  influence  upon  the 
history  of  science  as  William  Smith's  residence  in  Eng- 
land, for  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Paris  were  quar- 
ries of  soft  and  easily  worked  rock  abounding  in  the 
bones  of  mammals.  The  application  of  the  new 
method  of  study  showed  these  bones  to  be  of  extinct 
species  and  even  of  extinct  genera,  but  yet  to  have  such 
relations  to  the  structures  of  living  mammals  that  they 
could  be  arranged  in  the  same  orders.  These  re- 
searches, then,  were  the  foundation  of  the  science  of 
paleontology. 

In  one  important  respect  the  views  of  all  the  great 
geologists  of  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
were  radically  in  error.  They  looked  upon  the  his- 
tory of  the  world,  not  as  a  continuous  development 
under  the  operation  of  uniform  laws,  but  as  a  discon- 
tinuous series  of  periods  of  gradual  change,  alternating 
with  epochs  of  sudden  and  catastrophic  change.  They 
are  often  spoken  of  as  the  catastrophic  school  of  geol- 
ogists. Hutton,  for  instance,  clearly  understood  the 
processes  of  degradation  of  continents  by  the  action 
of  the  atmosphere,  water,  and  ice;   but  his  knowledge 

51 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

of  hypogene  agencies  was  so  imperfect  that  he  saw  no 
way  in  which  continents  could  be  elevated  by  the  ac- 
tion of  any  forces  known  to  him  to  be  now  in  operation. 
Accordingly  he  was  compelled  to  believe  that  from 
time  to  time  continents  were  upheaved  by  some  utterly 
inexplicable  catastrophe,  after  which  ensued  a  long 
period  of  relative  stability,  in  which  the  surface  of  the 
continents  was  slowly  degraded  by  the  intelligible 
processes  of  weathering  and  erosion.  The  paleon- 
tologists in  like  manner  accounted  for  the  change  in 
the  fauna  and  flora  indicated  by  the  fossil  contents  of 
successive  series  of  strata,  by  the  supposition  of  epochs 
of  universal  extermination,  each  of  which  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  creation  of  a  new  fauna  and  flora.  The 
two  views,  of  course,  naturally  fitted  together,  for  it 
could  easily  be  supposed  that  the  violent  convulsions 
which  the  physical  geologists  were  compelled  to  as- 
sume, were  the  occasion  of  the  universal  extermina- 
tions of  animals  and  plants  of  which  the  paleontologists 
seemed  to  find  evidence. 

The  contrast  between  the  old  and  the  new  views  in 
geology  is  illustrated  in  the  interpretation  of  the  phe- 
nomenon of  unconformable  strata.  In  many  cases  it 
is  observed  that  a  series  of  strata  is  tilted  up  to  a  more 
or  less  steep  inclination,  and  that,  upon  their  edges, 
which  have  been^^laned  ofif  to  an  approximately  hori- 
zontal surface,  there  rests  a  later  series  of  nearly  hori- 
zontal strata.  If  the  strata  in  such  cases  are  fossilifer- 
ous,  it  is  usually  observed  that  the  fauna  and  flora 
represented  in  the  upper  series  of  strata  differ  very 

52 


Unconformable  Strata 


Fig.  4.— Wall  of  Grand  Canon  of  the  Colorado  River, 
formability  is  seen  at  two  levels.  From  Powell's 
ration  of  the  Colorado  River." 

53 


Uncon- 
"  Explo- 


The  Extension  of  the  Universe  in  Time 

widely  from  those  represented  in  the  lower.  The  in- 
terpretation of  the  facts  according  to  the  older  geology 
would  be  that  the  interval  between  the  deposition  of 
the  two  sets  of  strata  Avas  marked  by  an  epoch  of  con- 
vulsion and  universal  extermination.  The  modern  in- 
terpretation would  be  that,  after  the  deposition  of  the 
lower  series  of  strata,  there  ensued  an  elevation  of  the 
earth's  crust  in  that  vicinity,  which  may  have  been 
somewhat  rapid  or  very  slow,  but  was  not  violent  or 
convulsional,  and  that  the  region  thus  elevated  re- 
mained above  the  water  level  long  enough  for  the  rocks 
to  be  extensively  eroded.  Later  came  a  subsidence  of 
the  area  in  question;  and,  as  the  district  came  to  be 
depressed  below  the  water  level,  it  came  to  be  covered 
by  a  new  series  of  horizontal  strata.  Neither  the  move- 
ment of  elevation  nor  the  subsequent  movement  of  sub- 
sidence had  the  character  attributed  to  the  catastrophes 
of  the  older  geology ;  and  between  the  two  a  period  of 
greater  or  less  length  intervened,  in  which  the  region 
was  gradually  degraded  by  the  agencies  of  air  and 
water.  In  like  manner,  the  great  change  in  the  species 
of  animals  and  plants  represented  in  the  two  series  of 
strata  is  explained,  not  by  the  supposition  of  an  ex- 
termination and  a  new  creation,  but  by  the  recognition 
of  the  long  period  of  unrecorded  time  in  which  no 
strata  were  deposited  in  that  locality  because  the  re- 
gion was  above  the  water  level.  During  that  time  new 
species  may  have  been  formed  by  processes  of  evolu- 
tion, and  some  species  may  have  migrated  into  the 
region  in  question,  and  other  species  may  have  mi- 

54 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

grated  away  from  the  region,  or  may  have  gradually 
become  extinct.  The  movements  of  elevation  and  sub- 
sidence, of  which  the  very  fact  of  unconformability  is 
evidence,  would  naturally  open  some  routes  of  migra- 
tion and  close  other  routes.  As  a  result  of  these  proc- 
esses of  evolution  and  migration  continued  through 
an  indefinite  period  of  unrecorded  time,  a  complete  or 
nearly  complete  change  in  fauna  and  flora  might  well 
be  effected  without  any  epoch  of  universal  extermina- 
tion and  new  creation.  But  the  history  of  the  downfall 
of  catastrophism  and  the  rise  of  the  new  geology  will 
be  considered  more  fully  in  connection  with  the  dis- 
cussion of  evolution.* 

The  Antiquity  of  Man 

The  most  important  general  result  of  geological  in- 
vestigation, at  the  stage  which  had  been  reached  in  the 
early  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  was  the  recog- 
nition of  the  very  considerable  antiquity  of  the  earth. 
The  present  physical  condition  of  the  earth  was  sup- 
posed to  have  been  reached  as  a  result  of  a  long  se- 
ries of  alternating  epochs  of  catastrophe  and  gradual 
change.  The  existing  fauna  and  flora  formed  the  last 
of  a  long  series  of  successive  creations.  Man  belonged 
to  the  last  of  these  creations.  He  was  supposed  to  have 
appeared  in  connection  with  the  existing  fauna  and 
flora.  While  the  earth,  then,  was  very  ancient,  man 
was  relatively  modern.  Nothing  indeed  was  known 
which  contradicted  the  notion  that  the  antiquity  of 

*  See  page  153, 

55 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

man  might  be  measured  by  the  few  thousand  years  of 
the  traditional  chronology. 

The  accepted  doctrine  of  the  very  recent  advent  of 
man  was  disturbed  by  the  discovery  of  human  bones 
and  human  implements  associated  with  remains  of  ani- 
mals now  extinct.  This  discovery  clearly  contradicted 
the  notion,  then  universally  accepted  by  geologists,  that 
man  had  been  introduced  subsequently  to  the  latest 
epoch  of  catastrophe  and  extermination,  and  had  never, 
therefore,  coexisted  with  organisms  now  extinct.  The 
first  observations  of  importance  bearing  upon  the  sub- 
ject in  question  were  made  by  Schmerling,  in  the  ex- 
ploration of  numerous  caves  in  the  vicinity  of  Liege 
in  Belgium.  In  the  cave  breccias  and  stalagmite  floors 
he  found  human  bones  and  implements  associated  with 
the  bones  of  the  cave  bear,  the  cave  hyena,  the  woolly 
rhinoceros,  and  the  mammoth  or  woolly  elephant, 
which  are  now  altogether  extinct,  and  with  the  bones 
of  the  reindeer,  which  is  now  extinct  in  Belgium, 
though  surviving  in  regions  farther  north.  Schmer- 
ling's  researches  were  published  in  1833  and  1834, 
but  his  inference  of  the  actual  coexistence  of  man  with 
these  extinct  animals  was  so  strongly  opposed  to  the 
preconceived  opinions,  not  only  of  laymen  and  of  theo- 
logians, but  also  of  geologists,  that  his  memoir  re- 
ceived scarcely  any  consideration.  A  few  years  later, 
in  1847,  Boucher  de  Perthes  published  an  account  of 
his  researches  in  the  alluvial  gravels  on  the  banks  of 
the  River  Somme  in  northern  France.  These  gravels 
were  a  deposit  of  a  very  different  sort  from  the  breccias 

56 


Coexistence  of  Man  and  Extinct  Animals 

and  stalagmites  of  the  Belgian  caves,  but  they  revealed 
the  same  significant  fact  of  the  coexistence  of  human 
relics  with*  the  bones  of  extinct  species  of  animals. 
The  researches  of  Boucher  de  Perthes  would  probably 
have  been  treated,  as  those  of  Schmerling  had  been 
treated,  with  undeserved  and  persistent  neglect,  had 
it  not  been  that  in  1858  and  1859  the  valley  of  the 
Somme  was  visited  by  three  of  the  most  eminent  Eng- 
lish geologists,  Falconer,  Prestwich,  and  Lyell.  When 
these  high  authorities  gave  their  concordant  testimony 
to  the  accuracy  of  the  observations  and  to  the  sound- 
ness of  the  inferences  of  Boucher  de  Perthes,  the  mat- 
ter could  no  longer  be  ignored.  In  1863,  the  subject 
was  first  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  general  public 
by  the  publication  of  Lyell's  ''Geological  Evidences  of 
the  Antiquity  of  Man."  A  condensed  statement  of  the 
evidence  was  given  on  the  cover  of  that  book,  in  the 
embossed  figures  of  a  flint  spear-head  and  a  tooth  of 
the  mammoth.* 

But  so  contrary  to  prevalent  beliefs  was  the  co- 
existence of  man  with  these  extinct  animals  that  the 
conclusion  was  not  to  be  admitted  until  every  possible 
alternative  hypothesis  had  been  thoroughly  tested.  In 
the  first  place,  the  question  was  raised,  were  the  sup- 
posed implements  really  of  human  workmanship?  It 
is  noteworthy  that  even  to  the  present  time  very  few 
human  bones  of  very  great  antiquity  have  been  found. 
The  fact  is  not  surprising  when  we  reflect  that  human 

*For  an  account  of  these  and  other  finds  of  relics  of  ancient  man,  more 
concise  than  that  of  Lyell,  see  Lord  Avebury  (Sir  John  Lubbock),  Prehistoric 
Times. 

57 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

bodies  are  seldom  left  in  situations  where  they  can 
readily  be  preserved  as  fossils.  Fossils  occur  chiefly  in 
deposits  formed  under  the  waters  of  river,  lake,  or  sea. 
In  the  majority  of  cases,  savage  and  civilized  men  alike 
dispose  of  their  dead  by  burial  in  porous  soil,  where 
even  the  bones  soon  crumble  and  disappear,  or  by  cre- 
mation. Flint  implements,  on  the  other  hand,  are  likely 
to  be  lost  at  the  margin  of  streams  and  lakes,  and 
are  well-nigh  imperishable  even  when  left  on  dry  land. 
Moreover,  they  have  been  produced  in  immense  num- 
bers. But,  when  the  supposed  implements  of  flint  were 
discovered  in  localities  where  no  human  bones  oc- 
curred, there  was  naturally  some  degree  of  suspicion 
as  to  the  truly  artificial  character  of  the  supposed  relics. 
It  is,  of  course,  obvious  that  purely  accidental  frac- 
tures may  occasionally  shape  a  stone  into  a  form  much 
resembling  some  of  the  rude  implements  fashioned  by 
savage  art.  But,  as  the  finds  of  such  implements  in- 
creased in  number,  and  as  their  forms  came  to  be 
critically  studied  and  compared  with  those  made  by 
savages  in  various  parts  of  the  earth,  it  came  to  be 
universally  conceded  that  they  were,  beyond  reasonable 
doubt,  products  of  human  manufacture. 

A  second  question  which  was  naturally  raised  was 
whether  these  relics  were  truly  contemporaneous  with 
the  deposits  in  which  they  were  found.  Unconsoli- 
dated deposits  like  gravel  beds  are  very  readily  dis- 
turbed by  various  natural  events,  such  as  the  occasional 
blowing  over  of  trees  whose  roots  have  penetrated  to 
a  considerable  depth  below  the  surface,  or  by  the  work 

58 


The  Evidence  Criticized 

of  man;  so  that  implements  and  other  things  which 
have  been  dropped  on  the  surface  may  by  accident  or 
by  fraudulent  design  find  their  way  into  the  interior 
of  the  deposit,  and  may  therefore  seem  to  be  contem- 
poraneous with  it.  In  the  case  of  the  gravels  of  the 
Somme,  the  English  geologists  already  mentioned  had 
the  satisfaction  of  seeing  flint  implements  taken  out  of 
the  gravel  at  a  considerable  depth  below  the  surface, 
where  it  appeared  to  them  certain  that  there  had  been 
no  disturbance.  In  the  case  of  implements  found  be- 
neath the  stalagmite  crust  on  the  floor  of  a  cave,  such  a 
question  could  scarcely  be  raised. 

A  third  question  which  was  naturally  and  rightly 
raised  was  whether  the  bones  of  the  extinct  animals 
were  really  contemporaneous  with  the  deposits  in 
which  they  were  found.  It  is  sometimes  the  case,  in 
the  disintegration  of  a  fossiliferous  rock,  that  the  fos- 
sils are  transported  by  the  agency  of  running  water 
just  as  other  fragments  of  the  rock  might  be,  and  so 
come  to  be  included  as  constituent  parts  of  a  newly 
formed  rock.  Could  it  be  that  the  bones  of  extinct 
animals  had  been  thus  derived  from  earlier  fossiliferous 
formations?  It  was  not  long  before  that  question 
found  its  conclusive  answer.  In  a  cave  at  Brixham  in 
England  was  found  associated  with  flint  implements 
the  skeleton  of  the  hind  leg  of  a  cave  bear,  with  the 
bones  all  in  their  normal  position,  including  even  the 
patella.  Of  course  it  was  obvious  that  the  bear's  leg 
was  buried  in  the  situation  in  which  it  was  found, 
while  the  bones  were  still  fastened  together  by  their 

59 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

ligaments.  Their  derivation  from  some  older  fossil- 
iferous  stratum  was  utterly  impossible.  If  possible, 
a  still  more  conclusive  answer  to  this  question  was 
found  in  the  discovery,  in  the  cave  of  La  Madeleine 
in  southern  France,  of  a  slab  of  ivory  with  a  rude 
picture  of  the  hairy  elephant  scratched  upon  it  with 
some  flint  tool  (see  Fig.  5).  The  drawing  is  rude, 
but  not  inartistic,  and  the  animal  which  is  intended  to 
be  represented  is  utterly  unmistakable.  It  is  certain 
that  that  picture  was  not  reconstructed  from  scattered 
bones  and  teeth.  The  artist  had  unquestionably  seen 
the  elephant  alive. 

The  effect  of  investigation  was  thus  to  establish  be- 
yond reasonable  doubt  the  coexistence  of  man  with 
the  mammoth  and  other  extinct  mammals.  But  what 
does  that  fact  prove?  Does  it  prove  that  man  com- 
menced to  exist  earlier  than  had  been  supposed,  or  that 
some  of  these  extinct  animals  survived  to  a  later  date 
than  had  been  supposed  ?  A  fossil  does  not,  like  a  coin, 
bear  a  definite  date  inscribed  upon  it ;  and  our  estimate 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  human  remains  and  of  the  bones 
of  extinct  mammalia  associated  with  them  must  be 
based  upon  a  consideration  of  a  variety  of  evidence, 
archaeological,  paleontological,  and  geological. 

Long  before  the  geological  discoveries  which  started 
the  discussion  on  the  antiquity  of  man,  archaeologists 
had  noticed  that  the  prehistoric  relics  of  man  and  his 
works  in  Europe  represented  three  different  stages  of 
culture,  which  were  doubtless  in  a  general  way  con- 
secutive, though  the  periods  represented  by  these  stages 

60 


Paleolithic  Picture  of  Mammoth 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

of  culture  doubtless  overlapped  to  some  extent. 
Among  the  prehistoric  relics  of  latest  date  are  in- 
cluded implements  of  iron,  showing  that  they  be- 
long to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  invention  of  proc- 
esses for  the  reduction  and  manufacture  of  that  metal. 
In  another  group  of  prehistoric  finds,  implements  of 
bronze  are  present,  while  iron  implements  are  alto- 
gether absent.  These  belong  in  general  to  an  earlier 
date,  for  the  ores  of  copper  and  tin,  though  much  less 
abundant  than  those  of  iron,  are  much  more  easily 
recognized,  and  require  much  less  skill  for  their  re- 
duction. In  a  still  older  group  of  relics,  there  are 
implements  of  stone,  and  of  bone,  ivory,  and  similar 
materials,  but  metals  are  altogether  absent.  The  pe- 
riods corresponding  to  these  stages  of  culture  were 
called  by  archaeologists,  respectively,  the  age  of  iron, 
the  age  of  bronze,  and  the  age  of  stone.  It  is  needless 
to  say  that  these  stages  of  culture  correspond  to  chron- 
ological divisions  only  within  the  limits  of  some  one 
particular  district  of  country.  Centuries  after  the  Eu- 
ropean populations  had  entered  upon  the  iron  age,  the 
inhabitants  of  North  America  and  of  Australia  were 
still  in  the  stone  age. 

When  the  remains  of  man  associated  with  the  bones 
of  extinct  mammals  were  brought  to  light,  it  was  ob- 
vious, of  course,  that  they  belonged  to  the  stone  age, 
but  it  was  equally  obvious  that  they  represented  a 
stage  of  culture  vastly  lower  than  that  indicated  by  the 
later  relics  of  the  stone  age.  It  became  obvious,  in 
fact,  that  the  stages  of  culture  represented  by  the  ear- 

62 


Neolithic  and  Paleolithic  Man 

liest  and  the  latest  relics  of  the  stone  age  differed  more 
widely  from  each  other  than  that  of  the  later  stone 
age  differed  from  that  of  the  age  of  bronze.  It  be- 
came necessary,  then,  to  divide  the  stone  age  into  two 
periods,  which  were  named  appropriately  the  neolithic 
and  the  paleolithic — the  new  stone  age  and  the  old 


Fig.  6. — Paleolithic  implements.     From  Evans' 
Implements  of  Great  Britain." 


Ancient  Stone 


stone  age.  Paleolithic  men  made  implements  of  stone 
only  by  chipping  (see  Fig.  6).  In  those  localities 
which  probably  represent  the  earliest  part  of  the  pale- 
olithic age,  the  implements  are  generally  of  very  rude 
form.  In  later  paleolithic  time  more  skill  had  been 
developed,  and  some  of  the  implements  were  most 
artistically  shaped,  but  the  process  was  essentially 
the  same.     Neolithic  men  had  found  that  chisels  and' 

63 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 


gouges  and  similar  implements  could  be  shaped  to  a 
nicer  and  more  uniform  edge  b}^  grinding  than  by  chip- 
ping, and  accordingly  such  implements  in  neolithic 
time  were  ground  and  polished   (see  Fig.  7).     Time 

was  not  as  precious  in  the 
stone  age  as  in  the  age  of 
railroads  and  telegraphs ; 
but  time  was  worth  some- 
thing even  to  neolithic  man, 
and  he  did  not  waste  time 


Fig.  7. — Neolithic  implements.     From  Evans'  "Ancient  Stone 
Implements  of  Great  Britain." 

64 


Neolithic  Man  an  Invader 

in  grinding  arrow-heads  and  spear-heads  and  other 
implements  for  which  a  smooth  and  uniform  edge  was 
not  required.  He  retained  the  art  of  chipping  stone 
which  had  been  characteristic  of  paleolithic  man,  while 
adding  to  it  the  art  of  grinding  stone.  Paleolithic  man 
had  neither  pottery  nor  textile  fabrics;  neolithic  man 
had  both.  Paleolithic  man  was  a  hunter  and  fisher. 
His  only  food,  aside  from  the  animals  which  he  caught, 
was  afforded  by  the  spontaneous  products  of  the  earth. 
Neolithic  man  had  developed  the  art  of  agriculture. 
Paleolithic  man  had  no  domestic  animals.  In  the  ear- 
liest neolithic  finds  the  bones  of  the  dog  are  so  asso- 
ciated with  human  remains  as  to  indicate  that  the  dog 
had  already  been  domesticated.  In  later  neolithic  time 
it  appears  that  horses,  cattle,  sheep,  and  goats,  and  per- 
haps also  pigs,  were  added  to  the  possessions  of  man. 
There  is,  then,  a  vast  interval  in  the  scale  of  culture 
between  paleolithic  man,  with  only  chipped  stone,  and 
destitute  of  pottery,  textiles,  agriculture,  and  domestic 
animals,  on  the  one  hand;  and  neolithic  man,  on  the 
other,  using  both  chipped  stone  and  polished  stone  for 
his  various  implements,  and  possessing  pottery,  textiles, 
agriculture,  and  domestic  animals. 

If  neolithic  men  in  Europe  were  the  improved  de- 
scendants of  paleolithic  men,  the  difference  in  their 
stage  of  culture  would  doubtless  indicate  a  very  con- 
siderable lapse  of  time ;  but  that  was  probably  not  the 
case.  It  is  probable  that  neolithic  man  in  Europe  was 
an  invader,  who  dispossessed  paleolithic  man  of  the 
territory.     The  later  paleolithic  men  had  developed  a 

65 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

remarkable  artistic  taste,  as  is  shown  by  their  rude, 
but  often  very  expressive,  pictures  of  various  animals 
scratched  on  pieces  of  bone  or  ivory.*  Neolithic  man, 
though  in  a  far  higher  stage  of  general  culture,  was 
destitute  of  this  artistic  taste.  Neolithic  man  has  left 
us  no  pictures.  If  the  change  from  the  paleolithic  to 
the  neolithic  stage  represented  the  advance  of  a  single 
people  in  civilization,  it  would  be  difficult  to  account 
for  the  loss  of  the  artistic  power  which  had  been  de- 
veloped ;  but,  if  paleolithic  men  were  exterminated  by 
an  invading  race,  the  phenomenon  would  be  perfectly 
intelligible.  On  the  supposition  that  neolithic  men 
were  invaders  who  conquered  and  nearly  exterminated 
the  paleolithic  race,  the  difference  in  their  stages  of 
culture  gives  no  clear  indication  as  to  the  chronology. 
The  consideration  of  the  remains  of  animals  asso- 
ciated with  relics  of  paleolithic  and  of  neolithic  men, 
respectively,  shows  that  the  two  races  in  Europe  be- 
longed to  distinct  periods  in  the  paleontological  series. 
Paleolithic  man  was  associated  with  numerous  mam- 
mals now  totally  extinct,  as  the  cave  bear,  the  cave 
lion,  the  cave  hyena,  the  woolly  elephant,  and  the 
woolly  rhinoceros,  and  with  other  animals,  as  the  rein- 
deer, that  are  extinct  in  the  parts  of  Europe  where 
these  relics  have  been  found,  though  still  surviving  in 
regions  much  farther  north.  The  remains  of  neolithic 
man,  on  the  contrary,  are  found  associated  almost 
exclusively  with  mammals  that  still  survive  in  the  same 
regions.    The  only  mammals  now  extinct  whose  fossil 

*See  Fig.  5,  page  61. 

66 


The  Glacial  Period 

remains  are  ever  associated  with  relics  of  neolithic 
man,  are  the  Irish  elk,  and  the  wild  ox,  or  urns  (Bos 
primigenhis).  The  latter  still  roamed  in  great  herds 
in  Germany  in  the  time  of  Julius  Caesar,  and  its  de- 
scendants are  probably  still  represented  in  some  breeds 
of  domestic  cattle.  It  may  then  be  fairly  said  that  the 
Irish  elk  is  the  only  mammal  belonging  to  the  more 
ancient  fauna  that  survived  into  neolithic  times.  Ex- 
tensive changes  in  the  fauna  of  a  region,  by  the  proc- 
esses of  extinction,  evolution,  and  migration,  must  be 
supposed  to  occupy  considerable  time ;  and  the  paleon- 
tological  evidence  must  therefore  be  considered  to  in- 
dicate a  considerable  antiquity  for  paleolithic  man. 

The  history  of  man  may  be  further  correlated  with 
important  events  in  the  physical  history  of  the  globe. 
In  times  geologically  recent  occurred  the  remarkable 
episode  called  the  Glacial  period.*  There  is  difference 
of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  cause  of  this  remarkable 
phase  of  geological  history,  but  there  is  no  difference 
of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  principal  effects.  The  cli- 
mate, at  least  of  large  areas  in  Europe  and  in  North 
America,  became  somewhat  colder  than  it  is  at  present. 
In  mountain  regions  where  now  glaciers  are  found  in 
the  higher  valleys,  those  glaciers  increased  enormously 
in  size,  so  that  they  extended  far  out  upon  the  lowlands 
bordering  the  mountains.  In  the  more  northern 
parts  of  the  area  in  question,  glaciers  were  formed 
even  in  regions  which,  though  somewhat  elevated,  can- 
not strictly  be  called  mountainous.     The  mountains  of 

*See  Geikie,  TAe  Great  Ice  Age;  Geikie,  Prehistoric  Europe. 

67 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

Scandinavia  became  the  center  of  a  vast  ice  sheet, 
which  extended  southwestward  over  Great  Britain,  ex- 
cepting a  httle  tract  in  its  southwestern  corner,  south- 
ward over  the  lowlands  of  Holland  and  northern 
Germany,  and  southeastward  over  the  plains  of  Rus- 
sia, blending  at  its  extreme  eastern  margin  with 
the  ice  sheet  which  covered  the  northern  part 
of  the  Ural  Mountains.  In  North  America,  the  high- 
lands south  of  Hudson  Bay  and  between  that  bay  and 
the  St.  Lawrence  River  became  the  center  of  an  ice 
sheet  still  more  vast,  which  covered  most  of  the  Do- 
minion of  Canada  and  the  northeastern  United  States, 
extending  at  one  point  even  a  little  south  of  the  Ohio 
River,  and  blending  in  the  west  with  the  ice  mantle 
that  covered  the  northern  part  of  the  Rocky  Moun- 
tains. These  great  areas  must  have  been  in  substan- 
tially the  same  condition  as  Greenland  and  the  Ant- 
arctic Continent  at  the  present  time.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Alps  formed  the  center  of  a  smaller  ice  sheet  which 
extended  far  over  the  plains  of  northern  Italy,  southern 
Germany,  and  eastern  France.  Local  development  of 
glaciers  is  indicated  in  the  Pyrenees,  the  Caucasus,  and 
the  Himalayas,  as  well  as  in  the  Sierra  Nevada  and 
other  parts  of  the  western  Cordillera  in  the  United 
States.  The  formation  of  continental  ice  sheets  and 
the  increase  in  the  extent  of  glaciers  in  mountain  re- 
gions must  have  been  a  gradual  process.  For  a  long 
series  of  years,  the  snow-fall  of  each  winter  slightly 
exceeded  the  summer  melting,  and  so  the  snow  accu- 
mulated till,  little  by  little,  the  vast  mantles  of  ice  were 

68 


Glacial  and  Interglacial  Epochs 

formed.  The  disappearance  of  the  ice  sheets  was  grad- 
ual, like  their  formation.  Year  after  year  the  summer 
melting  gained  a  little  upon  the  winter  snow-fall,  and 
the  edges  of  the  glaciers  receded. 

But  the  more  recent  investigations  of  the  phenomena 
of  the  Glacial  period  indicate  that  the  history  is  more 
complex  than  is  implied  in  what  has  been  already  said. 
The  glaciers  advanced  and  receded,  not  once,  but  sev- 
eral times.  In  the  long  course  of  time  included  in  the 
Glacial  period,  there  were  alternations  of  milder  and 
more  severe  climate,  causing  corresponding  oscillations 
in  the  area  of  the  ice  sheets.  There  is  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  extent  of  these  oscillations,  and 
the  amount  of  territory  which  was  left  uncovered 
from  time  to  time  by  the  recession  of  the  ice;  but 
in  regard  to  the  general  fact  of  oscillation  in  tem- 
perature and  consequent  glaciation  there  is  general 
agreement. 

The  earliest  remains  of  paleolithic  man  in  Europe 
appear  to  be  later  than  the  time  of  the  greatest  exten- 
sion of  the  glaciers;  but,  in  several  localities,  relics 
of  man  are  found  covered  by  glacial  formations  be- 
longing to  some  of  the  later  periods  of  advance  of  the 
glaciers.  On  the  geological  scale,  then,  the  date  of 
the  earliest  remains  of  paleolithic  man  in  Europe  must 
be  assigned  to  some  one  of  the  interglacial  epochs. 

Can  we  translate,  with  any  reasonable  degree  of 
approximation,  the  paleontological  and  the  geological 
date  of  paleolithic  man  into  terms  of  human  chronol- 
ogy?   Among  the  many  theories  of  the  cause  of  gla- 

69 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

cial  cliiTiate,  one  of  the  most  popular  in  recent  years 
has  been  that  of  CrolL*  If  that  theory  were  the  true 
one,  it  would  give  us  data  for  a  somewhat  definite 
chronology  of  recent  geological  time.  Croll's  theory 
of  the  Glacial  period  is  that  it  was  caused  by  the  con- 
ditions which  existed  in  an  epoch  of  great  eccentricity 
of  the  earth's  orbit.  It  is  well  known  that  the  eccen- 
tricity of  the  earth's  orbit  is  a  variable  quantity.  At 
present,  the  ellipse  is  of  such  a  form  that  the  difference 
between  the  aphelion  and  the  perihelion  distance  of 
the  sun  is  about  3,000,000  miles.  At  present,  the  ec- 
centricity is  diminishing,  and  the  form  of  the  earth's 
orbit  is  slowly  approaching  a  circle.  It  will,  however^ 
never  become  a  circle,  but  after  a  time  will  grow  more 
eccentric.  At  times  in  the  past,  the  eccentricity  has 
been  so  great  that  the  difference  between  the  aphelion 
and  the  perihelion  distance  was  about  14,000,000 
miles.  Since  the  intensity  of  heat  radiation  received 
from  the  sun  varies  inversely  as  the  square  of  the  dis- 
tance, and  since  the  motion  of  the  earth  (according  to 
Kepler's  second  law)  is  slow  in  the  aphelion  and  fast 
in  the  perihelion  portion  of  its  orbit,  it  is  obvious  that, 
with  so  great  eccentricity,  if  either  hemisphere,  north 
or  south,  as  the  case  might  be,  had  its  winter  in  aphe- 
lion, that  hemisphere  would  have  a  very  long  and  cold 
winter,  and  a  very  short  and  hot  summer.  The  other 
hemisphere  would  have  at  the  same  time  a  short  and 
mild  winter  and  a  long  and  cool  summer — a  compara- 
tively equable  climate  throughout  the  year.     In  the 

*  See  CroU,  Climate  and  Time  in  their  Geological  Relations. 

70 


Croll's  Theory  of  Glacial  Climate 

opinion  of  CroU  and  his  followers,  the  long  and  cold 
winter  of  the  hemisphere  whose  winter  was  in  aphelion 
would  tend  to  produce  glacial  conditions  in  spite  of 
the  heat  of  the  short  perihelion  summer.  Owing  to 
other  astronomical  conditions,  the  season  in  which  the 
earth  passes  its  aphelion,  changes  from  winter  to 
spring,  summer,  and  autumn,  and  to  winter  again  in 
the  course  of  about  21,000  years.  At  present,  the  earth 
passes  its  aphelion  in  the  summer  of  the  northern,  and 
the  winter  of  the  southern,  hemisphere.  In  about 
10,500  years  these  relations  will  be  exactly  reversed. 
A  period  of  great  eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit,  when 
such  a  period  occurs,  is  generally  of  so  long  duration 
as  to  allow  several  such  alternations.  In  one  of  these 
long  periods  of  great  eccentricity,  the  northern  and  the 
southern  hemisphere  would,  therefore,  experience 
alternately  the  conditions  of  an  aphelion  winter.  This 
would  mean,  according  to  Croll,  a  glacial  epoch  for  the 
hemisphere  with  aphelion  winter,  and  an  interglacial 
epoch  for  the  other  hemisphere,  the  two  hemispheres 
thus  alternating  in  climatic  conditions  during  the  pe- 
riod of  great  eccentricity.  The  changes  in  the  eccen- 
tricity of  the  earth's  orbit  can  be  calculated  pretty  defi- 
nitely for  long  ages  past  or  future.  The  last  period 
of  great  eccentricity  of  the  earth's  orbit  commenced 
about  200,000  years  ago,  and  closed  rather  less  than 
100,000  years  ago,  so  that,  if  we  could  accept  this  in^ 
genious  theory,  it  would  give  us  a  tolerably  definite 
date  for  the  Glacial  period  and  for  all  events  which  can 
be  correlated  therewith. 

71 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

It  is,  however,  very  doubtful  whether  the  conditions 
of  the  hemisphere  having  winter  in  aphelion  in  a  time 
of  great  eccentricity  would  really  tend  to  produce  a 
glacial  epoch.  The  length  of  the  winter  and  the  short- 
ness of  the  summer  would  obviously  be  favorable  to 
glaciation,  since  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  during 
the  winter  the  greater  part  of  the  precipitation  would 
be  in  the  form  of  snow.  But  the  extreme  temperatures 
of  summer  and  winter  would  not  be  favorable  to  gla- 
ciation. The  amount  of  snow-fall  is  not  greatly  in- 
creased by  extreme  cold  in  the  winter,  but  extreme  heat 
in  the  summer  must  obviously  tend  to  the  more  rapid 
melting  of  the  snow.  In  the  case,  then,  of  the  hemi- 
sphere which  has  an  aphelion  winter  in  a  time  of  high 
eccentricity,  the  relative  length  of  the  seasons  tends  to 
glaciation,  but  the  intensity  of  heat  and  cold  is  adverse 
to  glaciation.*  Another  objection  to  the  eccentricity 
theory  of  the  Glacial  period  is  found  in  the  date  which 
it  would  compel  us  to  assign  to  that  event.  The  last 
epoch  of  great  eccentricity  came  to  an  end  something 
like  70,000  or  80,000  years  ago.  But  the  geological 
evidence  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  close  of  the 
Glacial  period  could  not  have  been  so  long  ago.  The 
geological  traces  of  glacial  work  are  too  fresh  to  be 
consistent  with  so  great  an  antiquity.  The  moraines 
which  have  not  been  torn  to  pieces  by  erosion,  the 
scratched  and  polished  rock  surfaces  which  have  not 
disappeared  by  weathering,  the  ponds  which  have  not 
been  drained  nor  filled — all  seem  to  indicate  that  the 

*  Science,  1886,  vol.  viii,  pp.  188,  347. 
72 


Chamberlin's  Theory  of  Glacial  Climate 

close  of  the  Glacial  period  must  have  been  within  a  few 
thousand  years  of  the  present  time. 

If  the  eccentricity  theory  is  rejected,  the  Glacial  pe- 
riod must  probably  be  supposed  to  have  been  due  to 
terrestrial  causes.  It  seems  almost  certain  that  the 
Glacial  period  was  preceded  by  an  extensive  elevation 
of  the  continents,  particularly  of  the  northern  parts 
of  the  continents,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  climatic 
change  was  in  part  directly  and  in  part  indirectly  the 
effect  of  that  elevation.  Elevation  of  land  tends 
directly  to  depress  temperature,  for,  in  ascending  from 
the  level  of  the  sea,  we  find  that  the  temperature 
falls  about  one  degree  Fahrenheit  for  every  three  hun- 
dred feet.  Continental  elevation  may  also  change  the 
course  of  ocean  currents,  and  produce  in  that  way 
effects  upon  climate  more  important  than  the  direct 
effect  of  the  increased  altitude.  But  probably  by  far 
the  most  important  climatic  effect  of  continental  eleva- 
tion, as  has  been  recently  shown  by  Professor  Cham- 
berlin,  of  Chicago  University,*  is  due  to  the  effect  of 
such  elevation  upon  the  constitution  of  the  earth's  at- 
mosphere. The  carbon  dioxide  of  the  atmosphere  al- 
lows solar  heat  to  pass  to  the  surface  of  the  earth  with 
relatively  little  absorption,  but  has  relatively  great 
power  of  absorption  for  the  non-luminous  rays  of  great 
wave-length  radiated  from  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
This  gas,  accordingly,  acts  as  a  blanket  to  keep  the 
surface  of  the  earth  warm.  Any  increase  or  decrease 
in  the  amount  of  carbon  dioxide  would  practically, 

"'Journal  of  Geology^  vol.  vi,  pp.  449,  609 ;  vol.  vii,  pp.  545,  667,  751. 

n 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

then,  give  the  earth  a  thicker  or  a  thinner  blanket.  The 
atmosphere  is  losing  and  gaining  carbon  dioxide  in 
many  ways.  But  the  source  of  loss  which  at  present 
is  far  more  important  than  any  other  is  the  solution 
of  limestones.  Whenever  limestone  is  dissolved,  the 
calcium  carbonate  is  converted  into  calcium  bicarbon- 
ate, and  the  carbon  dioxide  required  for  this  change 
is  drawn  from  the  atmosphere.  Of  the  sources  of  gain 
of  carbon  dioxide  to  the  atmosphere,  by  far  the  most 
important  at  the  present  time  is  found  in  the  marine 
animals  and  plants  which  form  calcareous  skeletons. 
These  creatures  draw  the  material  of  their  skeletons 
from  the  sea  water,  in  which  it  exists  in  solution  as 
calcium  bicarbonate.  Fixing  it  in  their  skeletons  as 
calcium  carbonate,  they  restore  the  excess  of  carbon 
dioxide  to  the  ocean,  and  hence  eventually  to  the  at- 
mosphere. The  effect  of  extensive  continental  eleva- 
tion upon  the  atmosphere  is  both  to  increase  the  loss 
of  carbon  dioxide  by  exposing  larger  areas  of  land 
to  the  solvent  action  of  water,  and  to  diminish  the 
gain  of  carbon  dioxide  by  converting  into  land  large 
areas  of  the  shallow  seas,  in  which  chiefly  live  the 
marine  animals  which  secrete  calcareous  skeletons. 
The  effect,  then,  of  a  continental  elevation  is  to  in- 
crease the  rate  of  loss,  and  diminish  the  rate  of  gain, 
of  carbon  dioxide  to  the  atmosphere. 

If  the  Glacial  period  is  to  be  explained  by  terrestrial 
causes,  our  only  means  of  reaching  a  rough  estimate 
of  its  chronology  is  by  the  study  of  erosion  and  other 
geological  effects  whose  date  can  be  correlated  with 

?4 


Chronology  of  Niagara 

that  event.  The  gorge  of  the  Niagara  River,  from 
the  Oueenston  escarpment  back  to  the  Falls,  has  been 
considered  as  affording  one  of  the  most  satisfactory 
registers  for  the  estimation  of  the  chronology  of  the 
Glacial  period.  It  is  probable  that  the  whole  length  of 
that  gorge  has  been  excavated  since  the  ice  sheet  re- 
tired for  the  last  time  from  the  region  of  Lake  Onta- 
rio. Two  surveys  of  the  vicinity  of  the  Falls,  made 
respectively  in  1842  and  1890,  show  that  in  the  last 
half-century  the  recession  at  the  apex  of  the  Horse- 
shoe Fall  has  been  between  four  and  five  feet  per  year. 
It  seems  at  first  glance  to  require  only  the  solution  of 
a  simple  proportion  to  show  the  date  of  the  beginning 
of  the  excavation.  If  the  river  can  cut  five  feet  in 
one  year,  it  can  cut  seven  miles  in  about  seven  thousand 
years.  But  closer  study  quickly  shows  that  there  are 
so  many  elements  of  uncertainty  that  the  result  of  such 
a  simple  calculation  is  worthless.  The  most  important 
disturbing  element  is  that  it  has  been  shown  to  be 
highly  probable  that,  at  two  different  epochs  during 
the  progress  of  the  excavation,  the  water  of  the  three 
upper  lakes  was  withdrawn  into  other  channels,  so 
that  much  of  the  gorge  was  excavated  by  a  stream  of 
vastly  less  volume  than  the  present  Niagara.*  The 
drainage  basin  of  Lake  Erie  affords  in  fact  only  about 
one  ninth  of  the  water  of  the  Niagara  River.  It  is 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  time  occupied  in  the  ex- 
cavation was  a  considerable  multiple  of  seven  thousand 

*  Taylor,  A  Short  History  of  the  Great  Lakes,   pp.   104-108,  in  Dryer's 
Studies  in  Indiana  Geography,  Terre  Haute,  1897. 

75 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

years.  It  is  true  in  general  that  the  rate  of  erosion 
and  sedimentation  and  other  geological  processes  is 
subject  to  variation  from  so  many  unknown  conditions 
as  to  render  any  definite  time  estimates  unattainable. 
Geology  is  not,  like  astronomy,  an  exact  science  in  its 
measurement  of  time.  It  appears  certain,  however, 
that  the  length  of  the  ice  age  as  a  whole,  with  its  alter- 
nating glacial  and  interglacial  epochs,  was  immensely 
greater  than  the  time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  final 
retreat  of  the  ice.  The  amount  of  erosion  accom- 
plished in  postglacial  time  seems  utterly  insignificant 
in  comparison  with  that  which  was  accomplished  in 
interglacial  times. 

While  it  is  impossible  to  give  any  definite  statement 
of  the  lapse  of  time  since  that  interglacial  epoch  to 
which  belong  the  earliest  remains  of  man  in  Europe, 
there  is  probably  no  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  geologist 
that  the  time  must  be  a  considerable  multiple  of  the 
six  thousand  years  of  the  Hebrew  chronology  or  of 
the  seven  thousand  years  of  the  chronology  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint.  Neolithic  man  apparently  entered  Europe 
after  the  final  retirement  of  the  glaciers,  and  the  date 
of  his  immigration  may  have  been  less  than  ten  thou- 
sand years  ago.  It  would  be  safe  to  say  that  at  least 
five  figures  would  be  required  to  express  the  date  of 
paleolithic  man.  His  first  appearance  in  Europe  be- 
longs to  an  antiquity  measured  not  by  thousands  of 
years  on  the  one  hand,  nor  probably  by  hundreds  of. 
thousands  on  the  other,  but  by  tens  of  thousands  of 
years. 

76 


Pithecanthropus  Erectus 

But  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  paleoHthic  man 
was  indigenous  in  Europe.  As  we  look  back  through 
the  period  of  history  into  the  dim  ages  of  tradition, 
we  seem  to  see  wave  after  wave  of  migration  coming 
into  Europe  from  the  East.  In  all  probability,  paleo- 
lithic man,  like  the  races  that  followed  him,  immigrated 
into  Europe  from  the  East.  Exceedingly  important 
in  this  connection  is  the  discovery,  within  a  few  years, 
of  a  human  femur  and  a  fragment  of  a  human  skull 
in  Java.  These  remains  were,  indeed,  described  by 
their  discoverer  as  belonging  to  a  creature  intermediate 
between  man  and  ape,  which  he  named  Pithecanthro- 
pus erectus.'^  They  are,  however,  in  all  probability 
human,  though  more  simian  in  character  than  any 
other  fossil  remains  of  man.  Their  location  in  the 
East  Indian  Archipelago,  the  home  of  the  orang  and 
the  gibbon,  is  exceedingly  suggestive  to  an  evolutionist. 
They  may  probably  claim  an  antiquity  far  more  remote 
than  that  of  paleolithic  man  in  Europe. 

The  question  of  the  antiquity  of  man  was  first  ear- 
nestly discussed  on  geological  grounds,  but  evidences 
from  various  other  sources  converge  towards  the  be- 
lief in  an  antiquity  far  beyond  the  limits  of  the  tradi- 
tional chronology.  On  some  of  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments belonging  to  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty,  thirteen 
centuries  before  the  Christian  era,  we  find  paintings 
of  Caucasians  and  Negroes,  exhibiting  the  contrast  in 
color  and  in  form  of  face  and  head  as  clearly  defined 
as  it  is  at  the  present  time.     Perhaps  two  thousand 

*  Dubois,  Pithecanthropus  erectus^  in  Smithsonian  Report,  1898,  p.  445. 

77 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

years  earlier,  in  monuments  referred  to  the  Fifth 
Dynasty,  are  figures  in  bas-relief,  which  are  said 
to  reproduce  faithfully  the  racial  characters  of  the 
pygmy  race  of  the  Akkas  described  by  Schweinfurth 


Fig.  8. — Egyptian  mural  painting,  showing  contrast  between  Cau- 
casian and  Negro  profiles.     From  Argyll's  "Primeval  Man." 

as  living  in  the  country  west  of  the  Albert  Nyanza.* 
Strongly  contrasting  with  such  a  prognathous  type  are 
the  pure  Caucasian  outlines  of  the  royal  portraits  in 
the  early,  as  in  the  later,  dynasties.  The  distinct  and 
independent  origin  of  a  number  of  human  races  is 
extremely  improbable.     The  whole  tendency  of  scien- 

*  Keane,  Ethnology ,  p.  245. 

78 


Divergence  of  Races  of  Men 

tific  thought  would  lead  us  rather  to  believe  that  even 
the  most  extremely  divergent  of  human  races  have 
arisen  by  variation  from  a  single  original  stock.  But, 
if  races  so  distinct  as  the  Caucasian  and  the  Negro  had 
acquired  their  present  characters  thousands  of  years 
ago,  the  suggestion  is  obvious  that  the  beginning  of 
that  differentiation  must  have  been  in  remote  antiquity. 

A  similar  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  history 
of  languages.  It  is  indeed  true  that  comparative  phi- 
lology cannot  demonstrate  the  common  origin  of  all 
human  languages.  According  to  William  D.  Whit- 
ney,* the  languages  of  the  human  race  present  no  such 
resemblances  as  would  suffice  to  demonstrate  original 
unity,  and  no  such  differences  as  to  demonstrate  orig- 
inal diversity.  But,  if  we  believe  that  physically  the 
various  races  of  men  have  all  been  derived  from  a  com- 
mon stock,  it  appears  probable  that  the  same  thing  is 
true  of  their  languages.  As  far  back  as  we  can  go  in 
the  past  we  find  evidence,  not  only  of  distinct  lan- 
guages, but  even  of  distinct  families  of  languages.  The 
date  of  the  beginning  of  differentiation  of  human 
speech  must  be  remote  indeed. 

Evidence  in  regard  to  the  development  of  civiliza- 
tion and  political  institutions  points  to  the  same  conclu- 
sion. The  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  Fourth  Dy- 
nasty of  Egyptian  kings,  the  builders  of  the  pyramids 
of  Gizeh,  is  most  conservatively  estimated  by  Meyer 
as  more  than  twenty-eight  centuries  before  Christ.f 


*  Lan<:iiage  and  the  Studv  of  TMnguage.,  p.  383. 

t  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible ^  art.  Egypt ^  by  W.  E.  Crura. 

79 


The  Antiquity  of  Man 

W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie  would  make  the  date  almost 
four  thousand  years  before  Christ.*  The  builders  of 
those  monuments  were  not  primitive  savages,  but  a 
people  of  arts  and  culture  and  elaborate  political  insti- 
tutions. The  civilization  which  Egypt  had  attained 
three  or  four  thousand  years  before  Christ  must  have 
been  the  growth  of  ages.  Within  the  last  few  years 
remains  have  been  brought  to  light  revealing  a  stage 
in  the  history  of  Egyptian  civilization  far  earlier  than 
that  of  the  pyramid-builders — remains  whose  date, 
according  to  Petrie,  is  about  five  thousand  years  be- 
fore Christ. f  The  Egyptians  of  this  predynastic  pe- 
riod, though  far  inferior  in  culture  to  the  invaders  who 
brought  in  the  civilization  of  the  First  Dynasty,  lived 
in  brick  houses,  and  fashioned  implements  of  metal  as 
well  as  of  stone.  Widely  scattered  over  the  plateau  of 
Upper  Egypt  are  the  flint  implements  of  paleolithic 
type,  testifying  to  the  existence  of  an  earlier  race  in 
far  more  remote  antiquity,  when  climate  and  geograph- 
ical conditions  were  very  different  from  the  present. J 
The  Babylonian  civilization  seems  to  be  traced  by  re- 
cent discoveries  to  a  date  even  earlier  than  that  of  the 
First  Dynasty  of  Egypt.  §  Indeed,  the  Babylonian 
civilization  is  believed  by  many  students  to  be  the 
source  of  the  Egyptian.  There  seems  to  be  reliable 
evidence  of  a  well-established  civilization  in  China  not 
less  than  two  thousand  years  before  Christ.  Accord- 
ing to  the  chronology  deduced  by  Archbishop  Usher 

*  History  of  Egypt ^  vol.  i,  p.  30. 

t  Ibid.^  vol.  i,  p.  8.  %  Ibid.,  vol.  i,  p.  5. 

§  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  art.  Babylonia,  by  F.  Hommel. 

80 


Genesis  and  Geology 

from  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  the  Noachian  Deluge  oc- 
curred 2348  B.  C.  The  pyramids  of  Gizeh,  accord- 
ingly, by  the  most  conservative  estimate,  are  hundreds 
of  years  older  than  the  date  of  the  Deluge  in  Usher's 
chronology.  It  may  be  said  that  the  Septuagint  text 
would  carry  the  date  of  the  Deluge  seven  or  eight  hun- 
dred years  further  back  than  the  Hebrew.  But  the 
difference  between  the  Hebrew  chronology  and  the 
Septuagint  is  utterly  insignificant  in  comparison  with 
the  antiquity  demanded  for  the  human  race  by  the 
convergent  evidence  derived  from  all  branches  of  study 
relating  to  the  prehistoric  past. 

Genesis  and  Geology 

We  must  now  consider  the  effect  of  the  discoveries 
whose  history  we  have  sketched,  in  regard  to  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  earth  and  of  man,  upon  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible  and  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration 
and  authority  of  the  Bible.  And  first  our  attention  is 
demanded  by  the  supposed  narratives  of  the  creation 
in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  the  bearing  of 
geological  science  upon  their  interpretation. 

Any  one  who  will  read  the  first  two  chapters  of 
Genesis  in  any  6ther  than  a  casual  and  perfunctory 
way,  can  readily  recognize  that  they  contain  not  one, 
but  two,  narratives  of  the  Creation.  The  first  of  these 
narratives  includes  the  whole  of  the  first  chapter  and 
the  first  three  verses  of  the  second  chapter.  The  sec- 
ond narrative  includes  the  remainder  of  the  second 
chapter.     There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  two 

81 


Genesis  and  Geology 

narratives  were  written  at  different  times  and  by  dif- 
ferent persons.  There  is  at  present,  among  those  who 
are  competent  to  have  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  sub- 
stantial unanimity  in  the  behef  that  the  Book  of  Gen- 
esis is  a  composite  structure,  containing  fragments  of 
documents  of  various  ages  which  a  later  editor  col- 
lected into  the  present  compilation.  The  two  narra- 
tives present  characteristic  differences  of  language. 
One  such  difference  may  be  mentioned,  as  showing 
itself  conspicuously  even  in  the  English  translation. 
In  the  first  narrative  the  Deity  is  constantly  called 
*'God";  in  the  second  he  is  as  constantly  called  "the 
Lord  God." 

The  comparison  of  the  two  narratives  reveals  im- 
portant discrepancies,  or  at  least  differences,  between 
them.  The  first  narrative  makes  the  work  of  creation 
occupy  six  days;  the  second  speaks  of  "the  day  that 
the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens."  The 
first  narrative  makes  man  the  last  work  of  creation; 
the  second  makes  the  creation  of  man  precede  that  of 
plants  and  animals.  The  first  narrative  implies  the 
simultaneous  creation  of  a  plurality  of  human  indi- 
viduals— "male  and  female  created  he  them ;"  the  sec- 
ond describes  the  making  of  a  single  male  individual 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  the  subsequent  mak- 
ing of  a  single  female  individual  out  of  a  rib  taken 
from  the  body  of  the  man.  The  first  narrative  pre- 
sents the  history  of  creation  as  a  continuous  progress 
from  lower  to  higher  forms  of  existence,  in  which 
each  stage  is  pronounced  "good"  in  its  time  and  or- 

82 


Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  Narratives 

der ;  the  second  gives  us  a  procedure  involving  experi- 
ment and  afterthought — the  Creator  being  represented 
as  saying  that  it  was  not  good  that  the  soHtary  man 
he  had  made  should  be  alone,  then  proceeding  to  make 
the  various  members  of  the  brute  creation,  finding 
among  them  no  ''help  meet"  for  the  man,  and  at  last 
making  a  woman  to  supply  the  desideratum.  The  first 
narrative  conceives  the  whole  process  of  creation  from 
a  quasi-evolutionary  point  of  view — "Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  grass,  the  herb  yielding  seed,  and  the  fruit 
tree  yielding  fruit" — "Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abun- 
dantly the  moving  creature  that  hath  life" — "Let  the 
earth  bring  forth  cattle,  and  creeping  thing,  and  beast 
of  the  earth  after  his  kind ;"  the  second  gives  a  pro- 
cedure in  the  style  of  the  "carpenter  God"  of  the  old 
natural  theology — the  Deity  being  represented  as 
manufacturing  animals  and  man  out  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  planting  a  garden,  and  extracting  a  rib 
from  the  man  for  the  fabrication  of  a  woman. 

Evidently  the  first  task  for  the  interpreter  who  re- 
gards these  two  narratives  as  scientifically  accurate  his- 
tory of  the  process  of  creation  is  to  reconcile  them  with 
each  other.  Until  that  can  be  done,  it  is  superfluous  to 
inquire  whether  both  or  either  of  them  can  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  teachings  of  science  in  regard  to  the 
history  of  man  and  his  dwelling-place.  The  natural 
conclusion  for  a  mind  free  from  any  dogmatic  pre- 
possessions in  regard  to  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture 
would  be  that  the  two  narratives  are  certainly  not 
scientifically  accurate  history  of  the  process  of  crea- 

83 


Genesis  and  Geology 

tion.  If  intended  to  be  such  history,  one  of  them  at 
least  is  more  or  less  erroneous. 

Moreover,  from  a  literary  point  of  view,  it  may  be 
reasonably  maintained  that  the  narratives  have  more 
the  appearance  of  poetry  or  allegory  than  of  science 
or  history.  The  parallelism  of  structure  running 
through  the  first  narrative,  and  its  division  into  stanzas 
each  of  which  concludes  with  a  refrain,  give  it  much 
more  the  style  of  a  psalm  than  that  of  a  scientific  trea- 
tise. The  literary  character  of  the  compositions  cer- 
tainly suggests  the  query,  whether  the  original  writer 
of  either  narrative  intended  to  give  a  scientifically  ac- 
curate history. 

Long  before  the  development  either  of  Biblical  crit- 
icism or  of  geology,  thoughtful  men  recognized  diffi- 
culties in  the  way.  of  any  literal  understanding  of  some 
parts  of  these  narratives.  Saint  Augustine  queried 
what  might  be  the  meaning  of  those  sunless  days  be- 
fore the  creation  of  the  heavenly  luminaries.  But  it  is 
not  within  the  scope  of  our  present  discussion  to  re- 
view in  detail  the  interpretations  of  the  early  chapters 
of  Genesis  in  patristic  and  medieval  time.  We  are 
concerned  at  present  only  with  the  history  of  interpre- 
tation since  the  rise  of  the  science  of  geology. 

But,  before  proceeding  to  sketch  the  history  of  the 
interpretations  which  have  been  developed  under  the 
influence  of  geological  facts  and  theories,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  remark  that  that  history  has  taken  a  peculiar 
form  in  consequence  of  the  fact  that  the  conceptions  of 
geology  first  became  prominent  in  the  world's  thought 

84 


Inspiration  of  Scripture 

at  about  the  same  time  with  a  particular  stage  of  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine  of  the  church  with  reference 
to  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures.  Had 
the  conceptions  of  geology  entered  into  the  general  cur- 
rent of  the  world's  thought  either  earlier  or  later  than 
they  did,  that  history  (at  least  as  regards  the  Protes- 
tant churches)  might  have  been  considerably  different. 
That  God  has  given  a  revelation  through  the  me- 
dium of  inspired  men,  has  been  indeed  a  part  of  the 
faith  of  the  Church  Universal.  ''Holy  men  of  God 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  "spake  by 
the  prophets."  And,  ever  since  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  were  collected  and  formed  into  a  canon,  the 
Bible  has  been  cherished  as  the  precious  record  of  that 
revelation.  But  inspiration  is  not  omniscience.  And 
the  belief  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  were  under  the 
special  influence  and  guidance  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  the  belief  that  their  opin- 
ions were  always  just,  their  arguments  always  conclu- 
sive, or  their  knowledge  of  facts  always  accurate.  The 
dogma  of  inerrancy  of  Scripture  appears  in  none  of 
the  ancient  creeds,  and  forms  no  part  of  the  Catholic 
faith.  In  patristic  times.  Saint  Jerome,  the  leading 
Biblical  scholar  of  the  early  ages  of  the  church,  did  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  Paul's  argument  based  on  the 
singular  number  of  the  word  ''seed"  (Gal.,  iii,  i6)  was 
addressed  to  the  "foolish  Galatians,"  and  was  adapted 
to  the  comprehension  of  those  to  whom  it  was  ad- 
dressed.    It  does  not  concern  our  present  purpose  to 

85 


Genesis  and  Geology 

inquire  whether  Jerome's  judgment  in  regard  to  the 
vakte  of  Paul's  argument  was  sound  or  not.  The  fact 
that  he  felt  at  liberty  to  hold  and  express  such  a  judg- 
ment shows  how  far  he  was  from  believing  in  the  in- 
errancy of  Scripture.  Such  a  belief  was  not  held  by 
the  early  Reformers.  The  freedom  of  Luther's  treat- 
ment of  some  books  of  the  Bible  is  well  known.  The 
Epistle  of  James  he  pronounced  "recht  strohern/'  since 
it  seemed  to  him  to  conflict  with  the  Pauline  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith.  Calvin  and  others  of  the  Re- 
formers, though  less  violent  than  Luther  in  their  forms 
of  expression,  recognized,  as  explicitly  as  he,  that  the 
spiritual  enlightenment  of  the  writers  of  Scripture  was 
in  varying  degrees,  and  did  not  infallibly  preserve  them 
from  errors  of  memory  or  of  opinion. 

But  the  weaker  spirits  of  a  later  generation  were 
frightened  by  the  work  which  the  Reformation  had 
accomplished.  Having  cut  loose  from  the  authority  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  they  found  themselves  adrift  on 
a  sea  of  speculation,  and  sought  in  terror  some  post  to 
which  they  could  moor  themselves.  The  infallible 
Church  was  gone  forever;  but  something  infallible 
must  be  found  to  take  its  place.  Hence  came  the  dogma 
of  the  inerrant  Bible.  I  do  not  of  course  intend  to 
charge  the  theologians  of  the  post-Reformation  period 
with  the  conscious  dishonesty  of  manufacturing  a  dog- 
ma to  meet  a  supposed  moral  need.  There  is  an  un- 
conscious logic  of  hopes  and  fears  which  insidiously 
smuggles  its  conclusions  into  the  realm  of  the  intellect ; 
and  I  believe  the  genesis  of  the  new  dogma  from  the 

86 


1 


Inerrancy  of  Scripture 

terrified  sense  of  need  of  infallible  authority  was  no 
less  real  because  unconscious. 

The  Bible,  then,  was  asserted  to  be  absolutely  in- 
errant — its  most  insignificant  details,  as  well  as  its 
most  important  teachings;  its  merely  incidental  allu- 
sions, as  well  as  its  central  and  essential  doctrines. 
Every  sentence  within  the  covers  of  the  Bible  must 
be  assumed  to  be  absolutely  "the  word  of  God."  The 
Bible  must  therefore  be  recognized  as  a  normative  au- 
thority for  the  belief  of  a  Christian,  not  simply  within 
the  sphere  of  morals  and  religion,  but  on  every  subject 
which  may  be  incidentally  mentioned. 

But  the  post  to  which  the  bark  of  faith  was  to  be 
moored  must  be  not  only  firmly  grounded,  but  also  stiff 
and  inflexible.  To  serve  the  purpose  of  a  normative  au- 
thority, not  only  must  the  Bible  be  absolutely  infallible, 
but  also  it  must  admit  of  no  diversity  of  interpretation. 
Hence  came  the  dogma  that  everything  in  the  Bible 
must  be  construed  with  absolute  literality,  unless  an  ex- 
plicit indication  to  the  contrary  is  contained  in  the  text 
itself.  No  allowance  is  to  be  made  for  the  character- 
istics of  the  Oriental  mind,  which  are  so  conspicuous 
on  every  page  to  him  who  reads  the  Bible  with  any  lit- 
erary sense.  In  spite  of  its  obviously  dramatic  form, 
the  Book  of  Job  must  be  considered  veritable  history, 
since  it  is  not  explicitly  stated  to  be  unhistorical.  The 
story  of  the  nobleman  who  delivered  ten  pounds  to  his 
ten  servants  is  expressly  called  by  the  evangelist  a 
parable ;  but,  as  the  story  of  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus 
is  not  so  labelled,  the  latter  story  must  be  considered 

87 


Genesis  and  Geology 

veritable  biography.  The  eschatological  symbols  of 
the  Apocalypse — the  great  white  throne,  the  assembly 
of  the  dead  for  judgment,  the  opening  of  the  books, 
the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  the  jasper-walled 
New  Jerusalem — are  all  to  be  interpreted  with  wooden 
literality. 

Ip  order  to  maintain  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  all 
discrepancies  between  different  narratives  of  or  allu- 
sions to  the  same  event  must  be  explained  away.  This 
has  been  done  on  the  principle  that  omission  of  par- 
ticulars is  not  inconsistent  with  inerrancy.  If,  there- 
fore, the  particulars  given  in  different  narratives  are 
different,  the  reconciliation  must  be  found  in  the  con- 
struction of  a  narrative  which  will  include  all  the  par- 
ticulars given  anywhere.  If  Matthew  says  Jesus  healed 
two  blind  men  as  he  was  leaving  Jericho,  and  Mark 
says  that  he  healed  one  blind  man  as  he  was  leaving 
Jericho,  and  Luke  says  that  he  healed  one  blind  man  as 
he  was  entering  Jericho,  the  narratives  must  be  har- 
monized by  the  assumption  that  he  healed  one  blind 
man  on  entering  and  two  on  leaving  the  city,  the  con- 
versations in  the  two  cases  being  substantially  iden- 
tical— a  supposition  which,  however  improbable  it  may 
be,  is  not  absolutely  impossible,  and  which  is  not  ex- 
plicitly contradicted  by  either  narrative.  Since  no 
erroneous  particular  can  be  anywhere  inserted,  the  gen- 
eral rule  of  interpretation  was  developed,  that  in  all 
cases  the  account  which  is  fullest  in  particulars  must 
be  considered  as  the  standard,  and  briefer  accounts 
must  be  so  explained  as  to  harmonize  therewith. 

88 


Biblical  Theory  of  Creation 

These  principles  applied  to  the  first  two  chapters  of 
Genesis  served  to  develop  a  theological  theory  of  the 
process  of  creation.  Both  narratives  must  be  assumed 
to  be  absolutely  inerrant;  both  must  be  interpreted 
with  absolute  literality;  every  particular  given  in 
either  must  be  included  in  the  composite  narrative.  The 
first  narrative  is  fullest  in  detail  in  regard  to  the  lower 
orders  of  creatures,  the  second  in  regard  to  man. 
Hence  the  first  narrative  must  be  the  standard  for  the 
early  stages  of  the  history,  the  second  for  the  conclud- 
ing stages.  The  work  must  be  conceived  to  have  occu- 
pied six  literal  days;  and,  when  the  second  narrative 
speaks  of  "the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made  the  earth 
and  the  heavens,"  the  word  day  must  be  taken  in  a 
loose  and  unchronological  sense,  or  else  the  making  of 
the  earth  and  the  heavens  must  be  understood  to  refer 
simply  to  the  initial  act  of  creation  of  matter.  The  or- 
der of  events  given  in  the  first  narrative  must  be  ac- 
cepted as  the  true  one;  and  the  different  order  in  the 
second  narrative  must  be  considered  as  due  to  the  fact 
that  that  narrative  is  merely  a  brief  summary,  in  which 
chronological  succession  is  ignored,  and  only  results 
are  given.  The  creation  of  man  must  be  supposed  to 
have  taken  place  as  the  closing  work  of  the  sixth  day, 
according  to  the  first  narrative;  but  its  method  must 
have  been  that  given  in  detail  in  the  second  narrative — 
the  forming  of  a  single  male  individual  out  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  and  (after  the  procession  of  the  animal 
kingdom  before  the  man,  and  the  failure  to  find  a  help 
meet  for  him)  the  deep  sleep,  the  removal  of  the  rib, 

89 


or  tkc    '^ 


\ 


Genesis  and  Geology 

and  the  production  of  the  woman.  Thus,  by  judi- 
ciously ignoring  or  explaining  away  a  few  phrases,  the 
two  narratives  were  ''harmonized,"  and  a  Biblical  the- 
ory ^f  the  process  of  creation  constructed. 

Such  was  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  such 
the  interpretation  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis, 
which  had  been  developed  in  the  Protestant  churches, 
at  the  time  when  the  new  science  of  geology  began  to 
make  its  influence  prominently  felt  in  the  general  cur- 
rent of  the  world's  thinking. 

There  was,  indeed,  a  short  period  in  which  it  seemed 
as  if  the  new  science  might  bring  some  aid  and  com- 
fort to  believers  in  the  literal  truth  of  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Genesis.  When,  after  more  than  a  century  of 
controversy,  it  came  to  be  generally  acknowledged  that 
fossils  were  actually  relics  of  plants  and  animals  of  an 
earlier  age,  it  was  for  a  time  widely  maintained  that 
the  fossiliferous  strata  were  deposited  by  the  waters  of 
the  Noachian  Deluge.  The  marine  shells  found  high 
up  on  the  Alps  were  hailed  as  strong  confirmation  of 
the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  Flood,  by  whose  waters 
"all  the  high  hills  that  were  under  the  whole  heaven 
were  covered."  It  is  interesting  to  find  Voltaire  sug- 
gesting that  the  marine  shells  found  on  the  Alps  were 
only  the  scallop-shells  thrown  away  by  pilgrims  on 
their  return  from  the  Holy  Land. 

But  the  hopes  of  the  theologians  to  find  in  the  new 
science  support  for  the  orthodox  theory  of  the  creation 
and  early  history  of  the  world  proved  illusive.  Fur- 
ther study  made  it  obvious  that  the  deposition  of  the 

90 


Geologists  Denounced  as  Infidels 

fossiliferoiis  strata  was  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  No- 
achian  Deluge.  And  so  the  conflict  between  geology 
and  Genesis  commenced,  with  the  demand  of  the  geol- 
ogists for  an  indefinite  allowance  of  time,  in  which  the 
earth  could  have  passed  through  the  manifold  series 
of  physical  and  biological  changes  of  which  the  strata 
are  the  monument. 

Of  course  the  first  attitude  of  the  interpreters  of 
Genesis  was  that  of  simple  denial  of  the  conclusions  of 
the  geologists.  Some  invented  a  variety  of  more  or 
less  absurd  theories  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the 
stratified  rocks  with  their  fossil  contents,  such  as  the 
hypothesis  of  a  reversal  of  continent  and  ocean  at  the 
time  of  the  Noachian  Deluge,  and  the  consequent  ap- 
pearance on  dry  land  of  the  deposits  formed  on  the 
ocean  bed  in  the  centuries  between  the  Creation  and 
the  Deluge.  Others  contented  themselves  with  de- 
nouncing the  geologists  as  infidels,  without  taking  the 
trouble  to  excogitate  any  hypothesis  for  the  explana- 
tion of  the  phenomena  on  which  the  doctrines  of  the 
geologists  were  based.  A  typical  expression  of  the  way 
in  which  geologists  were  regarded  by  the  church  in 
general,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  is 
found  in  the  words  of  Cowper, — 

"Some  drill  and  bore 
The  solid  earth;    and,  from  the  strata  there, 
Extract  a  register  by  which  they  prove 
That   He   who   made   it,   and   revealed   its   date 
To  Moses,  was  mistaken  in  its  age," 

But  the  progress  of  science  could  not  be  stopped  by 

91 


Genesis  and  Geology 

the  denials  of  stolid  ignorance  or  by  the  perverse  inge- 
nuity of  pseudo-scientific  hypotheses.  The  time  soon 
came  when  the  belief  in  a  considerable  antiquity  of  the 
earth  was  so  generally  accepted  that  it  was  obviously 
necessary  for  theologians  to  accommodate  themselves 
to  it.  The  problem  then  was  to  maintain  the  absolute 
literal  truth  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  at 
the  same  time  concede  the  indefinite  eons  demanded  by 
the  geologists.  And,  when  the  necessity  was  recog- 
nized, nothing  was  easier.  The  first  narrative  begins 
as  follows :  "In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth.  And  the  earth  was  without  form  and 
void;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep. 
And  the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters.  And  God  said,  'Let  there  be  light.'  "  Now 
inerrancy  in  a  narrative  does  not  imply  completeness. 
Any  number  of  facts  may  be  passed  over  in  silence, 
provided  there  is  no  inaccuracy  in  the  particulars  which 
are  asserted.  Any  amount  of  history  may  therefore 
have  had  its  place  between  the  ''beginning"  mentioned 
in  the  first  verse  and  the  chaos  described  in  the  second 
verse.  Some  exegetes  a  little  more  ingenious  made  the 
discovery  that  the  second  clause  in  the  narrative  might 
be  translated,  "And  the  earth  became  without  form 
and  void,"  thereby  giving  an  implication  of  a  more  or 
less  extended  series  of  events  preceding  the  reign  of 
chaos.  So  the  theologians  said  to  the  geologists,  "Put 
in  all  the  time  you  want  between  the  first  and  the  sec- 
ond verse  of  Genesis.  Build  up  your  piles  of  strata 
by  processes  of  erosion  and  sedimentation  as  leisurely 

92 


Supposed  Chaos  before  Creative  Week 

as  you  choose.  Let  as  many  generations  of  monsters 
now  extinct  as  the  imagination  of  man's  heart  can  con- 
ceive disport  themselves  through  measureless  eons. 
Only  allow  the  history  of  the  extinct  creations  to  termi- 
nate, a  reign  of  chaos  and  darkness  and  death  to  super- 
vene, and  the  present  arrangements  of  the  earth,  with 
the  present  races  of  living  creatures,  to  be  produced  in 
six  literal  days,  six  thousand  years  ago." 

Thus  the  problem  was  solved  without  departing  a 
hair's  breadth  from  the  literal  meaning  of  any  word 
in  the  narratives  of  Genesis.  And  for  the  time  the 
geologists  were  satisfied.  All  they  wanted  was  time; 
and  this  exegesis  gave  them  all  the  time  they  wanted. 
The  geologists  of  the  closing  years  of  the  eighteenth 
century  and  the  first  third  of  the  nineteenth  century 
were  all  catastrophists.*  They  knew  no  mode  of  transi- 
tion from  the  physical  and  biological  conditions  of  one 
geological  period  to  those  of  another,  except  by  tre- 
mendous cataclysms  or  convulsions  of  nature,  extermi- 
nating all  living  creatures,  and  leaving  the  field  clear 
for  a  new  creation.  The  chaos  of  the  second  verse  of 
Genesis  was  therefore  only  the  last  of  the  catastrophes 
of  geological  theory.  And  there  was  no  reason  then 
known  to  geologists  why  that  last  catastrophe  might 
not  have  been  as  recent  as  the  Mosaic  chronology 
required.f 

But  the  truce  was  of  short  duration.  Catastrophism 
in    geology    was    dethroned,    and    uniformitarianism 


*  See  page  51. 

t  See  Hitchcock,  The  Religion  0/  Geology^  lect.  ii. 

93 


Genesis  and  Geology 

reigned  in  its  stead.  Geological  periods  were  no  longer 
conceived  to  be  separated  from  each  other  by  cha- 
otic cataclysms.  More  critical  paleontological  study 
showed  that  seldom,  if  ever,  was  the  change  of  fauna 
and  flora  complete  in  passing  from  one  stratum  to 
another.  Some  species  survived,  while  the  majority 
became  extinct.  Even  in  those  rare  instances  in  which 
the  change  of  fossil  contents  between  successive  forma- 
tions seemed  to  be  complete,  it  began  to  be  believed  that 
the  facts  proved  not  a  sudden  and  universal  extermina- 
tion of  life,  but  only  an  unrecorded  interval  during 
which  the  fauna  and  flora  were  more  or  less  gradually 
changing.  It  became  substantially  certain  that  no  uni- 
versal extermination  of  life  preceded  the  dawn  of  the 
Recent  period.  Some  species  which  still  survive  com- 
menced in  the  Eocene,  if  not  earlier ;  and,  all  through 
the  Tertiary  and  Quaternary,  old  species  were  gradu- 
ally becoming  extinct,  new  species  being  introduced, 
and  the  fauna  and  flora  gradually  approximating  those 
of  the  present  time.  Early  in  the  latter  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  coexistence  of  relics  of  man 
with  fossil  remains  of  the  mammoth  and  other  species 
of  mammals  now  extinct  came  to  be  accepted  as  un- 
questionable. This  showed  conclusively  that  there  was 
no  chaotic  break  between  the  age  of  man  and  the  ages 
preceding.  A  feeble  attempt,  indeed,  was  made  in  some 
quarters  to  make  the  Glacial  period  do  service  as  the 
chaos  required  by  the  traditional  interpretation  of  Gen- 
esis ;  but  the  Glacial  period  utterly  fails  to  fulfill  the  re- 
quirements.   It  wrought  no  universal  extermination  of 

94 


Chaos  Supposed  to  be  Local 

life,  followed  by  a  new  creation.  Multitudes  of  species 
simply  migrated  southward,  as  the  ice  sheets  of  Europe 
and  America  slowly  extended  themselves  from  their 
centres  in  the  Scandinavian  and  Laurentian  hills,  and 
followed  back  on  the  edge  of  the  retreating  glaciers,  as 
the  climate  of  those  regions  gradually  ameliorated. 
And  over  the  greater  part  of  the  earth's  surface  there 
was  nothing  which  could  be  called  a  Glacial  period. 

The  theory  of  anything  corresponding  to  the  chaos 
of  the  traditional  interpretation  of  the  second  verse  of 
Genesis,  intervening  between  the  latest  of  past  geolog- 
ical periods  and  the  present,  became  manifestly  unten- 
able. There  was,  however,  a  curious  modification  of 
the  theory,  proposed  by  J.  Pye  Smith,*  which  was  in- 
capable of  refutation.  That  proposition  was  to  con- 
sider the  chaos,  with  its  darkness  and  death,  and  the 
creation  of  a  new  order  of  things,  as  purely  local,  per- 
taining only  to  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Garden 
of  Eden.  It  w^ould  certainly  be  impossible  to  prove 
that  there  was  not  some  unknown  area  somewhere,  in 
which,  six  thousand  years  ago,  there  was  an  interval 
of  darkness  and  death,  followed  by  a  period  of  six 
literal  days,  during  which  the  atmosphere  was  made 
once  more  to  admit  the  sunlight,  and  some  animals  and 
plants  were  created.  But  there  are  theories  in  regard 
to  which  refutation  is  equally  impossible  and  unnec- 
essary. To  save  the  supposed  inerrancy  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  at  cost  of  stripping  it  of  all  its  dig- 

*  The  Relation  beUveen  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  Some  Parts  of  Geological 
Science^  lect.  vii,  part  ii. 

95 


Genesis  and  Geology 

nity  and  significance,  is  a  very  poor  service  to  Chris- 
tian faith.  The  theory  of  a  local  chaos  never  gained 
many  converts.  The  common  sense  of  the  church 
seems  to  have  recognized  that,  if  the  credit  of  the  Mo- 
saic narrative  could  be  saved  only  by  such  a  device,  it 
was  not  worth  saving.  The  theory  is,  however,  in- 
teresting as  illustrating  the  tendencies  of  the  prevalent 
doctrines  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  and  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture. 

With  the  abandonment  of  the  attempt  to  interpolate 
all  geological  history  between  the  first  and  the  second 
verse  of  Genesis,  and  thus  to  preserve  intact  in  its 
literality  the  story  of  the  creative  week,  it  became  nec- 
essary to  find  some  new  scheme  of  reconciliation.  We 
have  already  seen  that  the  spirit  of  the  post-Reforma- 
tion doctrine  of  Scripture  was  adverse  to  any  departure 
from  strictly  literal  interpretation.  But  inerrancy  must 
be  maintained,  if  necessary,  at  cost  of  sacrifice  of  liter- 
ality. If  the  literal  interpretation  of  a  Scripture  passage 
yields  a  sense  which  is  obviously  false,  then  it  must  be 
assumed  that  some  figurative  interpretation  is  the  true 
one.  In  any  case.  Scripture  must  be  so  interpreted  as 
to  convey  no  erroneous  meaning.  There  came  in,  ac- 
cordingly, a  class  of  schemes  of  reconciliation  whose 
essential  characteristic  was  that  the  days  of  the  creative 
week  were  considered  in  some  sense  symbolic  or  repre- 
sentative of  indefinite  periods  of  time. 

It  is  a  curious  illustration  of  the  tenacity  with  which 
theologians  clung  to  a  literal  interpretation,  that  some 
of  the  earliest  writers  who  regarded  the  creative  week 

96 


Mosaic  Days  Symbolic 

as  a  period  of  indefinite  length,  attempted  nevertheless 
to  hold  fast,  at  least  in  form,  the  notion  of  literal  days. 
Certain  writers,  for  instance,  suggested  that,  in  the 
early  periods  of  the  earth's  history,  the  rotation  of  the 
earth  on  its  axis  may  have  been  inconceivably  slow,  so 
that  a  literal  day  may  have  been  an  immensely  long 
period  of  time.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  astronomy 
gives  to  any  such  notion  an  unqualified  contradiction. 
Others  suggested  that  Moses  does  indeed  give  the  his- 
tory of  six  literal  days ;  but  that  those  days,  instead  of 
being  consecutive,  were  separated  by  immense  inter- 
vals of  time,  so  as  to  be  representative  of  successive 
periods  in  the  history  of  creation.  This  seems  only 
a  juggle  of  words;  but  it  is  interesting  as  illus- 
trating how  reluctantly  the  literal  interpretation  was 
abandoned.* 

But,  however  reluctantly,  it  was  at  last  abandoned; 
and  the  scheme  of  symbolic  days,  in  some  form  or 
other,  came  into  general  acceptance.  It  will  be  no- 
ticed that  the  word  ''day"  came  to  be  regarded  as  mean- 
ing an  indefinitely  long  period  of  time,  not  because 
that  interpretation  was. considered  a  natural  one,  but 
because  it  seemed  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  save  the 
historic  truth  of  the  narrative.  It  had  become  sub- 
stantially certain  that  the  universe  was  not  made  in  six 
literal  days;  but  it  might  be  considered  to  have  been 
made  in  six  indefinite  periods.  Therefore,  an  inerrant 
writer  could  not  have  intended  to  say  that  the  universe 

*  References  to  the  authors  of  these  transitional  opinions  are  given   in 
Hitchcock,  Elementary  Geology,  30th  edition,  1859,  p.  348. 

97 


Genesis  and  Geology 

was  made  in  six  literal  clays,  but  might  have  intended 
to  say  that  it  was  made  in  six  indefinite  periods.  The 
interpretation  was  necessitated  by  the  prevalent  theory 
of  inspiration.  Whether  the  interpretation  can  be  con- 
sidered a  legitimate  one,  is  a  question  which  only  He- 
brew scholars  can  decide.  The  corresponding  Hebrew 
word,  like  the  word  "day"  in  English,  is  undoubtedly 
often  used  indefinitely  for  the  time  at  which  something 
occurs,  without  regard  to  duration,  and  may  also  be 
used  in  poetry  in  a  variety  of  altogether  figurative 
senses;  but  whether,  in  a  composition  of  historical  or 
scientific  character,  it  can  be  understood  to  mean  an 
eon,  is  a  different  question.  Whether  the  interpreta- 
tion itself  be  legitimate  or  not,  the  critic  unbiased  by 
dogmatic  prepossessions  must  consider  the  process  by 
which  it  was  reached  essentially  illegitimate. 

It  is  certain,  nevertheless,  that  the  scheme  of  symbolic 
days  gives  a  higher  and  more  dignified  character  to 
the  Biblical  narrative  than  the  earlier  scheme  of  inter- 
polating all  geological  time  between  the  first  and  the 
second  verse  of  Genesis.  It  makes  the  theme  of  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  the  creation  of  the  heaven  and 
the  earth — not  a  supposed  incident  in  the  conclusion  of 
the  process.  In  this  it  is  certainly  more  true  to  the 
spirit  of  the  passage.  Whether  the  passage  is  history 
or  poetry,  scientifically  exact  or  more  or  less  erroneous, 
divine  revelation  or  human  imagination,  there  is  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  the  theme  it  intends  to  treat  is 
the  creation  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth.  The  new 
scheme  has  also  an  attractive  feature  in  the  meaning 

98 


The  Divine  Sabbath 

which  it  gives  to  the  seventh  day — the  Divine  Sab- 
bath. If  the  six  days  were  periods  of  indefinite  length, 
the  seventh  day  may  be  considered  to  extend  from  the 
creation  of  man  to  the  consummation  of  earth's  his- 
tory. The  work  of  creation  having  culminated,  and  in 
an  important  sense  terminated,  in  the  introduction  of 
man,  the  characteristic  activity  of  the  Deity  in  terres- 
trial affairs  is  thenceforward  a  moral  and  religious 
work — the  training  of  his  human  children  for  spiritual 
fellowship  with  himself.  In  this  view,  the  Divine  Sab- 
bath becomes  a  beautiful  type  of  the  day  of  Christian 
worship — not  the  idle  repose  of  a  tired  laborer,  but 
earnest  activity,  inspired  by  holiest  feeling  and  directed 
to  the  noblest  purpose. 

The  theory  of  symbolic  days  has  been  developed  in 
a  variety  of  forms.  On  the  general  assumption  that 
the  days  of  Genesis  represent  successive  periods  in  th^ 
process  of  creation,  interpreters  have  differed  widely 
as  to  the  question  what  natural  events  are  referred  to 
in  the  somewhat  vague  language  descriptive  of  the 
work  of  each  day.  Two  of  these  schemes  may  be  taken 
as  specimens;  and  the  comparison  of  the  two  will  be 
instructive. 

One  of  the  earliest,  and  perhaps  the  best,  of  these 
schemes  was  proposed  a  generation  ago  by  Hugh 
Miller.*  His  general  conception  was  that  the  work 
of  creation  was  presented  to  the  mind  of  the  seer 
in  a  series  of  visions — ideal  landscapes,  so  to  speak — 
representing  successive  stages   in  the  history  of  the 

*  The  Testimony  of  the  Rocks ^  lects.  iii,  iv. 

99 


Genesis  and  Geology 

globe.  As  the  material  for  his  narrative  was  given  in 
the  form  of  visions,  his  description  is  to  be  considered 
purely  visual — phenomenal.  He  sketches  in  pictur- 
esque language  the  most  conspicuous  features  of  the 
pictures  presented  to  his  imagination,  making  no  at- 
tempt at  scientific  interpretation  of  them.  As  the  whole 
Biblical  conception  of  the  universe  is  geocentric,  the 
"Mosaic  vision  of  creation"  forms  no  exception.  The 
heavenly  bodies  are  considered  simply  as  incidents  or 
adornments  of  the  earth.  The  work  of  the  first  day — 
the  creation  of  light — represents  accordingly  the  stage 
of  the  earth's  development  in  which  the  atmosphere 
first  became  sufficiently  diaphanous  to  allow  light  from 
the  sun  to  penetrate  to  the  surface.  The  precipitation 
of  condensing  vapors  to  form  the  primeval  ocean  is 
supposed  to  have  proceeded  so  far  as  to  give  the  at- 
mosphere some  degree  of  translucency  some  time  in 
the  course  of  the  Archaean  age.  The  second  day's 
w^ork — the  creation  of  the  firmament — represents  a 
stage  in  the  condensation  of  vapors  when  the  lower 
strata  of  the  atmosphere  had  become  tolerably  clear, 
while  a  continuous  ocean  of  cloud  filled  the  upper  re- 
gions, rendering  sun,  moon,  and  stars  still  invisible, 
though  the  amount  of  diffused  light  had  increased. 
This  condition  is  supposed  to  have  been  reached  early 
in  the  Paleozoic  eon.  The  works  of  the  third  day — 
separation  of  land  from  water,  and  creation  of  plants — 
find  their  obvious  explanation  in  the  broad  continental 
areas  and  luxuriant  forest  vegetation  of  the  Carbon- 
iferous.     The    fourth   day's   work — creation   of   sun, 

lOO 


The  Mosaic  Vision  of  Creation 

moon,  and  stars — represents  the  period  when  the  con- 
densation of  vapors  and  clarification  of  the  atmos- 
phere had  proceeded  so  far  that  the  sun,  moon,  and 
stars  became  visible  from  the  surface  of  the  earth. 
This  stage  Miller  supposes  to  have  been  reached  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  Carboniferous  or  in  Triassic  time. 
The  fifth  day's  work — creation  of  sea  monsters — is 
naturally  referred  to  the  culmination  of  reptilian  life 
in  the  later  Mesozoic.  The  w^orks  of  the  sixth  day — • 
creation  of  beasts  and  of  man — correspond  well  with 
the  culmination  of  mammalian  life  in  the  Cenozoic,  and 
the  appearance  of  man  in  the  Quaternary. 

A  very  different  scheme  has  been  proposed  by  Pro- 
fessors Dana*  and  Guyot;f  and  the  deservedly  high 
respect  in  which  these  great  Christian  scholars  have 
been  held  has  secured  for  their  scheme  very  general 
acceptance.  They  give  to  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
a  more  strictly  scientific  character  than  is  attributed  to 
it  by  Miller.  The  description  is  supposed  to  be  not 
purely  visual  or  phenomenal,  but  somewhat  philosoph- 
ical. The  ideas  were  communicated  to  the  mind  of  the 
seer,  not  by  vision,  but  by  some  other  mode  of  revela- 
tion. The  significance  of  the  first  two  days  is  not  ter- 
restrial, but  cosmical.  The  work  of  the  first  day  is  the 
beginning  of  molecular  activity  in  matter.  Since  all 
forms  of  physical  energy  are  correlated,  the  dawning 
of  light  would  be  the  sign  that  those  transformations 

*  Manual  o/  Geology,  3d  edition,  p.  845  ;  The  Genesis  0/  the  Heavens  and 
the  Earth  ;  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xlii,  p.  201  ;  Old  and  New  Testament 
Student,  vol.  xi,  pp.  12,  84. 

t  Creation;  or,  the  Biblical  Cosmogotty  in  the  Light  0/  Modern  Science. 

lOI 


Genesis  and  Geology 

of  energy  which  constitute  the  history  of  nature  had 
commenced.  The  second  day's  work — the  dividing  of 
the  "waters  which  were  under  the  firmament  from  the 
waters  which  were  above  the  firmament,"  or,  in  more 
technical  language,  the  dividing  of  the  fluids  from  the 
fluids — is  interpreted  as  referring  to  the  separation  of 
the  molten  mass  of  the  earth  from  those  of  the  sun 
and  the  other  planets — the  individualization  of  the 
earth,  in  accordance  with  the  nebular  theory.  The 
works  of  the  third  day  refer  to  the  beginning  of  differ- 
entiation between  continent  and  ocean,  and  the  appear- 
ance of  the  simplest  and  humblest  forms  of  vegetation. 
The  former  of  these  events  certainly  occurred  in  the 
Archaean,  and  the  latter  probably  before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Cambrian.  The  fourth  day's  work  is  con- 
sidered by  Dana  and  Guyot,  as  by  Miller,  to  represent 
the  stage  of  condensation  of  atmospheric  vapors  which 
rendered  the  heavenly  bodies  visible  from  the  surface 
of  the  earth.  According  to  these  writers,  however,  that 
stage  was  reached  about  the  beginning  of  Paleozoic 
time,  rather  than  at  the  much  later  date  assigned  by 
Miller.  The  fifth  day's  work  is  interpreted  as  referring 
to  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the  types  of  structure  of 
the  animal  kingdom  (exclusive  of  the  mammalia), 
through  Paleozoic  and  Mesozoic  time.  The  chrono- 
logical reference  of  the  sixth  day  is  essentially  the  same 
as  in  Miller's  scheme. 

The  comparison  of  these  two  schemes  with  each 
other  and  with  the  facts  of  paleontology  may  be  facili- 
tated by  a  tabular  statement.    In  the  table  on  page  103, 

102 


Table  of  Geological  Ages 


Eons. 

Eras. 

Changes  in 
Fauna  and  Flora. 

Miller. 

Dana. 

Quaternary 

Man  begins. 

VI 

VI 

Tertiary 

Placental  mammals  begin. 

Cretaceous 

Higher  flowering  plants  begin 
(angiosperms). 

V 

Mesozoic 

Jurassic 

Birds   begin.      Reptiles   cul- 
minate.         Gymnosperms 
culminate. 

Triassic 

Mammals  begin  (non-placen- 
tal).    Reptiles  become  much 
more  abundant.     Amphib- 
ians culminate. 

IV 

Carboniferous 

Reptiles  begin.     Amphibians 
become  much   more  abun- 
dant.  Insects  become  much 
more     abundant.        Pteri- 
dophytes  culminate. 

III 

V 

Devonian 

Amphibians    begin.       Fishes 
become  much  more  abun- 
dant.   Flowering  plants  be- 
gin (gymnosperms). 

Paleozoic 

II 

( 

Silurian 

Fishes    become    more    abun- 
dant. 

Ordovician 

Vertebrates     begin     (fishes). 
Land    animals    begin    (in- 
sects).    Land  plants  begin 
(pteridophyles). 

IV 

Cambrian 

Marine    invertebrates  varied 
and  abundant.     Seaweeds. 

Archaean 

Evidences  of  life  scanty  and 
dubious. 

I 

III 

103 


Genesis  and  Geology 

the  first  column  gives  the  four  great  eons  into  which 
geological  time  is  divided,  and  the  second  column  the 
eras  into  which  those  eons  are  subdivided.  The  third 
column  indicates  the  most  important  changes  in  fauna 
and  flora  by  which  each  era  was  signalized,  as  shown 
by  fossils.  The  fourth  column  shows  the  portions  of 
geological  time  assigned  by  Miller  to  each  of  the  Mo- 
saic days.  The  fifth  column  shows  the  portions  of 
geological  time  assigned  by  Dana  to  four  of  those  days. 
It  will  be  recognized  that  the  table  is  arranged  in  the 
order  of  superposition  of  the  geological  strata,  and 
must  accordingly  be  read  from  bottom  to  top  in  order 
to  show  the  course  of  the  earth's  history. 

The  very  fact  of  so  wide  a  discrepancy  between  these 
interpretations  of  a  passage  which  students  of  nature 
and  of  the  Bible,  so  reverent  and  so  learned,  have  as- 
sumed to  be  a  divine  revelation  of  scientific  facts,  cer- 
tainly suggests  the  doubt  whether  there  is  in  the  pas- 
sage any  revelation  of  scientific  facts  at  all.  A  divine 
revelation  of  a  stage  in  the  history  of  creation  is  cer- 
tainly of  very  little  value,  if  couched  in  terms  so  darkly 
enigmatical  that  one  cannot  tell  whether  they  refer  to 
a  state  of  incipient  translucency  in  the  earth's  atmos- 
phere, or  to  the  beginning  of  molecular  activity  in  the 
cosmos ;  to  the  formation  of  a  stratum  of  cloud  above 
the  clearing  lower  strata  of  the  atmosphere,  or  to  the 
individualization  of  a  molten  orb  from  a  condensing 
nebula.  The  propounding  of  mere  riddles  seems  more 
in  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  pagan  than  with  that  of 
Christian  oracles. 

104 


Revelation  of  Science  Improbable 

It  seems  on  general  principles  improbable  that  a 
revelation  of  scientific  facts  and  theories  should  be 
given.  Everywhere  else  in  the  Bible,  nature  is  referred 
to  only  in  the  most  purely  phenomenal  way.  The  as- 
pects of  the  physical  universe  are  alluded  to  as  they 
appear  to  the  uneducated  senses  of  man  in  an  unscien- 
tific age.  The  Biblical  writers  show  in  general  no  in- 
dication of  any  knowledge  of  nature  superior  to  that 
possessed  by  other  men  of  their  time.  Some  of  them 
were  acute  observers  of  nature  in  an  esthetic  fashion — 
many  of  the  Psalms  breathing  the  spirit  of  the  true 
nature-poet;  but  any  language  implying  attempt  at 
scientific  explanation  of  natural  phenomena  is  apt  to 
reveal  a  totally  erroneous  conception.  It  is,  then,  ex- 
ceedingly improbable  that,  in  the  isolated  case  of  the 
first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  a  somewhat  detailed 
sketch  of  the  history  of  the  earth  should  have  been 
supernaturally  revealed.  This  objection  lies  with  even 
greater  force  against  the  theory  of  Dana  and  Guyot 
than  against  that  of  Miller.  We  might  perhaps  con- 
ceive of  a  series  of  visions,  exhibiting  in  pictorial  fash- 
ion some  stages  of  the  earth's  history,  being  presented 
to  the  mind  of  an  inspired  seer ;  but  it  would  tax  our 
credulity  more  severely  to  believe  that  there  were  given 
enigmatical  intimations  of  the  nebular  theory  and  of 
the  doctrine  of  conservation  of  energy. 

Such  a  revelation  could  serve  only  one  conceivable 
purpose.  As  the  enigmas,  unintelligible  when  first 
spoken  or  written,  found  their  interpretation  in  the  dis- 
covery of  the  facts  to  which  they  referred,  they  might 


Genesis  and  Geology 

furnish  material  for  a  chapter  on  the  evidences  of  reve- 
lation. Not  long  ago  the  Bible  was  supposed  to  be 
full  of  material  of  an  analogous  kind.  The  prophetic 
passages,  both  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament, 
were  supposed  to  afford  detailed  predictions  of  histor- 
ical events  destined  to  occur  centuries  or  millenniums 
subsequent  to  the  date  of  the  prophecy — predictions 
absolutely  meaningless  and  useless  to  the  people  to 
whom  they  were  written  or  spoken,  but  destined  to  be 
interpreted  by  the  gradual  evolution  of  history,  and  so 
to  furnish  the  material  for  a  perpetually  lengthening 
chapter  of  Christian  evidences.  A  radical  change  has 
come  over  our  conception  of  the  function  of  prophecy. 
With  more  critical  determination  of  the  date  of  some 
prophecies  and  the  meaning  of  others,  with  a  fuller 
recognition  of  the  truth  that  most  of  the  prophetic  ut- 
terances having  the  form  of  prediction  were  simply 
threats  or  promises  conditioned  on  the  conduct  of  the 
persons  addressed,  with  the  frank  acknowledgment  that 
some  predictions  have  failed  of  exact  fulfilment,  we 
have  come  to  regard  as  the  main  function  of  prophecy, 
not  the  construction  of  a  map  of  all  future  history  with 
symbols  and  names  in  cipher,  but  the  presentation  of 
warnings,  consolations,  and  moral  exhortations,  to  re- 
form or  confirm  the  religious  faith  and  life  of  the  peo- 
ple addressed.*  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Bible  contains 
prophetic  riddles  of  science,  any  more  than  of  history. 
It  can  hardly  be  claimed  that  any  scientific  man 

*  It  is  not  intended  to  deny  that  there  are  some  prophecies  which  look  far 
down  the  ages ;  notably,  the  growing  burden  of  Messianic  prophecy,  which 
runs  all  through  the  Old  Testament. 

io6 


f  UN 


Schemes  of  Reconciliation  Criticized 

would,  for  any  scientific  purpose,  divide  the  earth's 
history  (whether  beginning  with  the  commencement 
of  molecular  activity  in  matter,  or  with  the  individuali- 
zation of  the  earth)  into  six  co-ordinate  periods  cor- 
responding with  the  creative  days  of  Genesis.  All 
that  the  advocates  of  either  of  the  schemes  we  have 
considered  (or  of  any  other  form  of  the  theory  of  days 
representative  of  long  periods)  could  possibly  claim, 
is  that  the  earth's  history  can  be  arbitrarily  divided 
into  six  periods,  characterized  respectively,  more  or 
less  appropriately,  by  some  one  event  (or  two)  whose 
order  of  succession  will  not  contradict  the  order  in 
Genesis.  Critically  examined,  neither  of  the  schemes 
which  we  have  considered  will  be  found  to  meet  this 
condition. 

The  enumeration  of  the  animals  which  appeared  re- 
spectively on  the  fifth  and  on  the  sixth  day  certainly 
presents  difficulties  on  either  scheme  of  interpretation. 
It  is  almost  certain  that  mammals  appeared  before 
birds  in  geological  history,  while  in  the  order  of  Gene- 
sis birds  are  assigned  to  the  fifth  day,  and  mammals 
to  the  sixth.  It  may,  indeed,  be  replied  that  birds 
probably  did  precede  the  typical  placental  mammals, 
and  that  there  is  no  serious  error  in  ignoring  the  insig- 
nificant monotremes  and  marsupials  of  early  Mesozoic 
time.  It  may  be  further  alleged  that  birds  are  men- 
tioned in  the  enumeration  of  the  works  of  the  fifth 
day,  simply  as  completing  the  Inventory  of  non-mam- 
malian life,  which  is  collectively  contrasted  with  mam- 
malian life;   it  being  undoubtedly  true  that  non-mam- 

107 


Genesis  and  Geology 

malian  life  in  general  preceded  mammalian  life.  A 
somewhat  more  serious  difficulty  is  found  in  the  word 
translated  ''creeping  thing"  in  the  enumeration  of  the 
works  of  the  sixth  day.  The  word  is  indefinite  in  its 
signification,  but  it  certainly  cannot  be  understood  as 
referring  exclusively  to  the  smaller  mammals,  though 
these  may  be  supposed  to  be  included.  The  word  in- 
cludes the  terrestrial  reptiles  and  an  indefinite  variety 
of  terrestrial  invertebrates.  It  is  needless  to  say  that 
most  of  the  groups  of  animals  included  in  this  hetero- 
geneous assemblage  antedated  considerably  in  their  or- 
igin any  period  of  geological  time  which  any  form  of 
the  theory  of  symbolic  days  has  appropriated  to  the 
sixth  day.  It  may  be  answered  that  reptiles  (as  repre- 
sented by  the  larger  and  the  more  conspicuous  mem- 
bers of  the  class)  are  included  among  the  dragons,  or 
sea  monsters,  of  the  fifth  day  (the  word  'Svhales"  in 
the  authorized  version  being  inadequate,  if  not  alto- 
gether incorrect,  as  a  translation)  ;  and  that  the  smaller 
and  more  insignificant  reptiles,  amphibians,  and  inver- 
tebrates are  ignored  in  an  enumeration  which  makes 
no  attempt  at  exhaustive  completeness.  But  the  an- 
swer seems  not  altogether  satisfactory. 

A  more  fatal  difficulty,  however,  is  encountered  by 
both  3chemes  in  attempting  to  give  a  consistent  inter- 
pretation of  the  portion  of  the  narrative,  included  in  the 
third,  fourth,  and  fifth  days.  Miller  cannot  put  the 
third  day  earlier  than  the  Carboniferous  era,  since 
no  luxuriant  and  conspicuous  forest  vegetation  charac- 
terized the  earlier  eras.     He  is,  therefore,  obliged  to 

io8 


Schemes  of  Reconciliation  Criticized 

maintain  that  not  until  after  the  Carboniferous  did  the 
earth's  atmosphere  become  sufficiently  clear  for  the 
heavenly  bodies  to  become  visible  from  the  earth's  sur- 
face. This  is  almost  certainly  false.  The  trilobites  of 
the  earliest  Cambrian  had  elaborate  compound  eyes, 
like  their  successors,  the  Crustacea  of  the  present  day, 
indicating  that  they  probably  lived  in  good  daylight. 
And  it  is  immensely  improbable  that  the  vegetation  of 
the  Carboniferous — a  vegetation  which  included  flow- 
ering, as  well  as  flowerless,  plants — was  developed 
without  a  gleam  of  direct  sunlight. 

Dana  and  Guyot  escape  from  this  difficulty  only  to 
meet  another  even  more  fatal.  Dana  puts  the  clearing 
up  of  the  atmosphere  which  characterizes  the  fourth 
day  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Paleozoic.  The  clos- 
ing work  of  the  third  day — the  creation  of  plants — is 
understood  to  signify  the  absolute  beginning  of  vege- 
table life — the  introduction  of  the  very  simplest  and 
lowest  unicellular  organisms, — which  probably  took 
place  in  pre-Cambrian  time.  The  beginning  of  the 
history  of  animals  was  certainly  substantially  simulta- 
neous with  that  of  plants.  The  lowest  organisms  do 
not  exhibit  the  typical  characters  of  either  animals  or 
plants.  From  that  common  starting-point  of  undiffer- 
entiated unicellularity  the  stream  of  evolution  has 
flowed  in  two  divergent  directions.  The  lowest  ani- 
mals must  therefore  have  appeared  simultaneously  with 
the  lowest  plants.  So  far  as  can  be  inferred  from  fos- 
sils, the  animal  kingdom  was  expanded  to  something 
like  its  present  range  of  development  earlier  than  the 

109 


Genesis  and  Geology 

vegetable.  Vertebrates  appear  earlier  than  phanero- 
gams, and  birds  and  mammals  before  angiosperms. 
But  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  puts  the  creation  of 
plants  on  the  third  day,  and  that  of  the  lower  orders 
of  animal  life  on  the  fifth,  a  period  of  indefinite  length 
being  interpolated  between  them.  Dana  and  Guyot 
seek  to  escape  this  difficulty  by  interpreting  the  cre- 
ation of  plants  as  referring  to  the  absolute  begin- 
ning of  vegetation,  and  interpreting  the  creation 
of  animals  as  referring  to  the  expansion  of  animal 
life  into  varied  types.  This  is  obviously  illegitimate. 
Parallel  symbols  must  have  parallel  interpretations. 
The  creation  of  plants  and  of  animals  respectively  may 
mean  absolute  beginning,  or  it  may  mean  full  de- 
velopment ;  but,  whichever  it  means,  it  means  the  same 
thing  in  the  two  cases.  On  neither  interpretation  can 
the  order  in  geology  and  that  in  Genesis  be  made  to 
correspond. 

There  is  another,  though  somewhat  less  glaring,  in- 
consistency of  interpretation  in  the  theory  of  Dana  and 
Guyot.  After  explaining  the  work  of  the  first  day,  in 
a  manner  so  sublimely  philosophical,  as  the  beginning 
of  molecular  activity  in  matter,  it  is  rather  incongruous 
to  interpret  the  fourth  day's  work  in  a  sense  so  humbly 
visual  and  phenomenal  as  the  breaking  up  of  the  clouds 
in  the  earth's  atmosphere.  In  this  respect  Miller  is 
more  consistent. 

There  are,  indeed,  other  variations  of  the  theory  of 
days  symbolic  of  indefinite  periods,  but  it  seems  un- 
necessary to  examine  them  in  detail.    The  two  schemes 

no 


Reconciliation  Impossible 

which  have  been  examined  are  sufficient  to  serve  as 
representatives  of  the  class.  None  of  the  others  have 
been  expounded  and  defended  with  greater  resources 
of  knowledge  and  ability.  None  that  I  have  examined 
seem  more  successful  in  evading  the  difficulties  which 
beset  the  attempt  to  reconcile  the  order  in  Genesis  with 
the  order  in  geology. 

The  conclusion  which  seems  forced  upon  us  is  that 
no  reconciliation  between  the  geological  record  and 
that  of  Genesis  is  possible.  The  order  of  events  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  not  the  order  of  events  in 
geology.  The  order  of  events  in  Genesis  is  one  which 
would  naturally  suggest  itself  to  an  unscientific  but 
somewhat  philosophical  imagination.  The  inorganic 
arrangements  of  the  earth  precede  for  the  most  part 
the  introduction  of  its  organic  inhabitants.  Plants 
precede  the  animals  that  feed  upon  them,  and  the  lower 
animals  precede  the  higher.  With  the  fondness  for 
parallelism  so  characteristic  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  each 
triad  of  days  begins  with  a  furnishing  or  an  adjust- 
ment of  the  illumination  of  the  scene ;  and  each  triad 
ends  with  a  double  work,  of  which  the  first  part  is  the 
culmination  of  the  closing  era,  and  the  second  part  a 
prophecy  of  the  succeeding  era.  Or,  according  to  an- 
other conception  of  the  parallelism,  the  first  triad  gives 
us  the  different  elemental  realms,  and  the  second  triad 
the  inhabitants  of  those  realms.  Thus  the  first  day 
gives  us  the  realm  of  cosmic  light,  and  the  fourth  day 
the  luminaries  which  may  be  poetically  conceived  as 
the  inhabitants  of  that  realm.    The  second  day  reveals 

III 


Genesis  and  Geology 

the  realms  of  ocean  and  air,  and  the  fifth  day  peoples 
those  elements  with  fish  and  fowl.  The  third  day  pro- 
duces the  terrestrial  realm  with  its  adornment  of  vege- 
tation, and  the  sixth  day  crowns  the  creation  with 
terrestrial  animal  life.  It  is  a  profoundly  thoughtful 
conception  of  the  cosmos;  but  it  is  not  astronomy,  nor 
geology,  nor  biology. 

If  the  order  of  events  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
cannot  be  reconciled  with  our  present  knowledge  of 
geology,  it  is  needless  to  say  that  the  mode  of  crea- 
tion of  man  detailed  in  the  second  chapter  cannot  be 
reconciled  with  our  present  ideas  in  biology.  Believers 
in  evolution  certainly  cannot  believe  that  the  first  man 
was  molded  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  nor  that 
the  first  woman  was  made  out  of  one  of  the  man*s  ribs. 

And  a  reconciliation  between  Genesis  and  modern 
science  is  as  unnecessary  as  it  is  impossible.  The  at- 
tempts at  reconciliation  have  been  necessitated  solely 
by  the  post-Reformation  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of 
Scripture — a  dogma  which  has  formed  no  part  of  the 
faith  of  the  Church  Universal,  which  has  been  repu- 
diated by  most  of  the  greatest  theologians  of  ancient 
and  of  modern  times,  and  which  is  responsible  for  an 
endless  amount  of  perverse  ingenuity  and  sophistica- 
tion in  the  interpretation  of  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament.  Let  us  fairly  recognize  that  inspiration 
does  not  mean  omniscience,  and  that  errors  in  detail 
on  the  part  of  the  Biblical  writers,  especially  on  sub- 
jects outside  the  sphere  of  morals  and  religion,  do 
not  invalidate  the  claims  of  Christianity  as  a  revela- 

112 


Reconciliation  Unnecessary 

tion.  We  shall  then  be  freed  from  any  anxiety  as  to 
i-econciliation  between  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis 
and  modern  science.  In  a  spirit  of  purely  literary  and 
historical  criticism,  we  can  then  consider  what  the 
original  writers  of  the  two  narratives  in  Genesis,  and 
what  the  compiler  who  put  them  into  the  Pentateuch, 
probably  believed  and  intended  to  teach — whether  the 
first  narrative  was  intended  to  be  history  or  poetry; 
whether  the  days  were  intended  to  have  any  chronolog- 
ical signification  or  not;  whether  the  order  of  events 
was  intended  to  be  an  order  of  time,  or  only  an  order 
of  thought;  whether  the  second  narrative  was  con- 
scious allegory,  or  myth  erroneously  believed  by  the 
writer  or  the  compiler  to  be  history. 

The  Hebrew  traditions  of  creation  present  points  of 
parallelism  to  the  Babylonian  mythology,  and  much  of 
the  material  of  those  traditions  doubtless  belongs  to 
the  common  heritage  of  the  Semitic  peoples.  They 
are  no  more  true  scientifically  in  their  Hebrew  form 
than  in  their  other  forms.  That  which  is  character- 
istic of  the  Biblical  form  of  these  traditions,  and  that 
wherein  we  recognize  the  divine  inspiration  of  the  He- 
brew seers,  is  the  pure  monotheistic  theology  and  the 
lofty  moral  tone  which  have  gained  for  these  ancient 
documents  the  reverence  of  the  ages. 

Relieved  from  the  supposed  necessity  of  finding  in 
the  Mosaic  narratives  a  prophetic  anticipation  of  mod- 
ern geological  science,  we  shall  be  prepared  more 
clearly  to  recognize  their  moral  teaching.  We  shall 
find  that  each  of  the  two  narratives  conveys  its  charac- 

113 


Genesis  and  Geology 

teristic  lesson.  The  first  narrative  is  a  majestic  psalm 
of  praise  to  God  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe.  In 
order  to  emphasize  the  antithesis  between  the  mono- 
theism of  the  Hebrews  and  the  universal  polytheism 
around  them,  the  particular  objects  of  nature  which 
were  worshipped  by  pagan  nations  are  expressly  enu- 
merated as  the  creatures  of  God.  He  is  the  God  above 
all  gods.  The  arrangement  in  seven  sections  or  days 
has  obvious  reference  to  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath. 
Through  the  allegorical  or  mythical  form  of  the  sec- 
ond narrative,  we  see  the  great  truth  set  forth  that 
God  is  the  providential  ruler  and  guide  of  his  chil- 
dren, the  author  of  the  family  relation  and  of  social 
institutions,  the  inspirer  of  art  and  science  and  civiliza- 
tion. With  the  moral  teaching  of  the  psalm  in  the  first 
chapter  and  the  allegory  in  the  second,  science  has  no 
conflict  and  requires  no  reconciliation. 

Something  should  be  said  at  this  point  in  regard  to 
the  bearing  of  the  geological  and  other  evidences  of 
the  antiquity  of  man  upon  the  Biblical  chronology. 
The  Biblical  chronology  from  Adam  to  Abraham  is 
based  upon  two  genealogical  tables  contained  respec- 
tively in  the  fifth  and  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Genesis. 
The  former  table  gives  the  genealogy  from  Adam  to 
Noah,  the  latter  the  genealogy  from  Noah  to  Abraham. 
The  chronological  data  in  both  of  these  tables  are  of 
the  same  sort.  Each  of  the  persons  mentioned  is  said 
to  have  lived  a  certain  number  of  years  and  to  have 
begotten  a  son.  On  the  supposition  that  the  numbers 
given  are  reliable,  the  sum  of  the  series  of  numbers 

114 


Biblical  Chronology 

representing  the  age  of  each  patriarch  at  the  time  of 
the  birth  of  the  son  named  in  the  table  will  give  us 
the  length  of  time  covered  by  the  series  of  generations 
in  question.  It  is  from  data  of  this  sort  that  Arch- 
bishop Usher  deduced  the  traditionally  received  date 
of  the  Creation  of  the  world,  4004  B.  C.  The  num- 
bers given  in  the  Septuagint  version  differ  considerably 
from  those  of  the  Hebrew,  so  that,  if  the  computation 
is  based  upon  the  Septuagint,  the  date  of  the  creation 
is  about  1,400  years  earlier.  But,  of  course,  the  dif- 
ference of  1,400  years  between  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Septuagint  chronology  is  of  no  importance  to  geol- 
ogists. The  antiquity  of  man,  according  to  the  teach- 
ings of  geology  and  the  other  sciences  which  bear  upon 
man's  early  history,  requires  not  the  addition  of  a 
few  hundred  years  to  the  traditional  date,  but  the  mul- 
tiplication of  the  traditional  period  by  a  considerable 
factor.  The  Septuagint  chronology  is  no  more  recon- 
cilable with  science  than  the  Hebrew  chronology. 

The  only  aspect  in  which  the  difference  between  the 
numbers  of  the  Hebrew  and  those  of  the  Septuagint 
is  of  any  importance,  is  in  the  indication  it  affords  of 
the  extensive  corruption  of  the  tradition  or  of  the  text. 
This  indication  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  some  of  the  numbers  differ  from 
both  the  Hebrew  and  the  Septuagint.  The  fact  that 
the  texts  differ  so  widely  in  their  numerical  statements 
makes  it  altogether  probable  that  accidental  or  inten- 
tional alterations  of  the  numbers  in  question  have  been 
so  numerous  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  determine 

115 


Genesis  and  Geology 

what  the  original  numbers  were.  That  of  itself  indi- 
cates the  unreliability  of  the  traditional  chronology. 

A  fact  which  indicates  probable  error  in  these  gene- 
alogical tables  is  the  enormous  longevity  attributed  to 
many  of  the  persons.  Several  of  them  are  said  to  have 
lived  more  than  nine  hundred  years,  and  one  of  them, 
Methuselah,  to  have  attained  the  age  of  969  years. 
But,  according  to  the  teachings  of  biological  science,  a 
somewhat  definite  period  of  life  is  about  as  character- 
istic of  each  species  of  living  creature  as  a  somewhat 
definite  limit  of  size.  A  man  nine  hundred  years  old 
would  be  as  much  of  a  monstrosity  as  a  man  whose 
stature  was  fifty  feet.  The  former  is  about  as  in- 
credible as  the  latter.  Some  critics  have  supposed  that 
these  immense  numbers  were  originally  intended  to 
represent  the  length  of  the  reign  of  some  dynasty,  or 
the  period  of  dominance  of  some  family  or  tribe;  and 
that,  in  the  corruption  of  the  original  tradition,  the 
period  covered  by  a  succession  of  related  lives  came  to 
be  mistaken  for  the  lifetime  of  an  individual. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  original  form  and 
the  original  meaning  of  these  numerical  statements,  it 
appears  substantially  certain  that,  as  they  stand  at  pres- 
ent, they  are  utterly  unreliable,  and  the  chronology 
which  is  based  upon  them  is  absolutely  worthless. 
This,  of  course,  is  fatal  to  the  dogma  of  scriptural  in- 
errancy ;  and  I  believe  the  geological  discoveries  which 
have  established  the  great  antiquity  of  man  have  been 
exceedingly  useful  to  the  church,  in  the  very  fact  that 
they  have  revealed  a  contradiction  between  the  conclu- 

116 


Antediluvian  Chronology  Worthless 

sions  of  science  and  the  text  of  Scripture  so  trenchant, 
and  apparently  so  incapable  of  being  explained  away 
by  any  device  of  exegesis,  as  to  expose  most  clearly 
the  falsity  of  the  dogma  of  inerrancy.  Apart  from  the 
dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  Bible,  the  question  of 
the  date  of  the  origin  of  man  has  obviously  no  theo- 
logical significance  whatsoever. 

Sharp  and  unqualified  as  the  contradiction  appears 
between  the  scientific  teaching  of  the  antiquity  of  man 
and  the  text  of  Scripture,  some  exegetes  have  yet  in- 
sisted that  the  great  antiquity  of  man  may  be  admitted 
without  denying  the  doctrine  of  inerrancy.  The  chro- 
nology, it  is  said,  may  be  lengthened  as  much  as  may 
be  necessary  by  the  simple  supposition  that  some  links 
are  omitted  in  the  chain  of  genealogy.  It  must  seem 
to  a  mind  unbiased  by  dogmatic  prepossessions  that 
those  exegetes  use  words  in  a  peculiarly  accommo- 
dated sense.  It  is  quite  intelligible  that  a  writer 
who  was  not  inerrant  might  have  incomplete  informa- 
tion in  regard  to  a  line  of  genealogy,  and  might  de- 
scribe one  person  as  the  son  of  another  when  he  was 
really  his  grandson  or  his  great-grandson;  and  it  is 
quite  possible  that  many,  if  not  all,  of  the  names  men- 
tioned in  those  genealogical  tables  may  be  names  of 
actual  persons  who  were  in  one  hereditary  line,  though 
various  links  in  the  chain  of  the  generations  have  been 
omitted.  Such  a  genealogical  table,  as  the  work  of  a 
writer  capable  of  error  and  possessed  of  incomplete 
knowledge,  would  be  perfectly  intelligible.  But,  when 
a  learned  exegete  tells  us  that  an  inerrant  writer  can 

ii; 


Genesis  and  Geology 

declare  that  a  man  lived  an  hundred  sixty  and  two 
years  and  begat  his  great-great-great-grandson,  the 
common  mind  is  left  wonderingly  to  inquire  whether 
words  have  any  definite  meaning  or  not. 

Another  point  in  whicli  geology  and  other  sciences 
require  modification  of  traditional  beliefs  in  regard  to 
Scripture  history,  is  the  Noachian  Deluge.  As  we 
have  already  seen,*  the  Noachian  Deluge  was  formerly 
supposed  to  have  been  an  event  of  tremendous  signifi- 
cance in  the  history  of  the  earth  as  well  as  in  the  his- 
tory of  man.  For  about  a  century  and  a  half  the 
opinion  was  widely  held  that  the  whole  mass  of  the 
fossiliferous  rocks  was  deposited  by  the  Noachian 
Deluge.  Even  after  tliat  notion  had  t)een  dissipated, 
the  belief  was  still  retained  that  the  waters  of  the  flood 
actually  covered  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth.  In 
the  eighteenth  century  it  was  a  common  undertaking 
of  Biblical  students  to  calculate  the  cubic  contents  of 
the  ark,  and  to  prove  that  its  capacity  was  ample  for 
the  residence  of  pairs  of  all  species  of  animals,  and  for 
the  storage  of  a  supply  of  food  for  them  for  a  num- 
ber of  montlis.  So  long  as  people  neither  knew  nor 
cared  about  the  animals  of  other  parts  of  the  world 
than  Europe  and  western  Asia,  nor  about  the  countless 
multitudes  of  species  of  insects  and  others  of  the 
smaller  and  less  conspicuous  forms  of  life  even  in  that 
region,  these  conclusions  looked  sufficiently  plausible. 
But,  in  the  light  of  our  present  knowledge  of  the  num- 
ber and  distribution  of  animal  species,  the  preservation 

*  See  pages  45,  9a 
118 


The  Noachian  Deluge 

of  representatives  of  all  terrestrial  species  in  the  ark 
becomes  absolutely  incredible.  The  conception  of 
sloths,  tortoises,  and  snails  promenading  in  pairs  across 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  from  South  America,  to  find  at 
last  a  home  in  the  ark  somewhere  in  the  valley  of  the 
Euphrates,  involves  a  combination  of  conditions  whose 
improbability  is  simply  colossal.  From  the  standpoint 
of  dynamical  geology,  the  supposition  of  such  crustal 
movements  as  would  cause  a  universal  submergence  of 
continents  and  mountains  at  any  time  in  recent  geo- 
logical history  would  be  utterly  incredible. 

But,  while  the  supposition  of  a  deluge  universal  as 
regards  the  earth  is  utterly  incredible,  it  is,  of  course, 
perfectly  possible  that  there  may  have  been  at  an  early 
period  of  human  history  a  deluge  universal  as  regards 
the  human  race.  Whether  we  suppose  the  race  to  have 
originated  from  a  single  pair,  in  accordance  with  He- 
brew tradition,  or  (as  on  biological  grounds  would  be 
far  more  probable)  from  a  considerable  number  of 
individuals  evolved  to  the  condition  of  humanity  at 
about  the  same  time,  it  is  probably  true  that  the  race 
in  its  origin  was  confined  within  pretty  narrow  geo- 
graphical limits,  and  that  its  wide  diffusion  over  the 
surface  of  the  earth  is  the  result  of  later  migration. 
There  would  be,  then,  nothing  in  itself  incredible  in 
the  notion  that,  before  the  race  had  become  widely 
diffused,  a  deluge,  such  as  might  be  caused  by  earth- 
quake waves  or  even  by  a  violent  hurricane,  might  de- 
stroy the  whole  race,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  in- 
dividuals or  a  single  family,  who  might  find  safety  in 

119 


Genesis  and  Geology 

some  sort  of  a  boat.  Whether  there  is  any  adequate 
evidence  for  beHeving  in  the  actual  occurrence  of  such 
a  catastrophe,  is  another  question. 

The  behef  that  the  Noachian  Dehige  was  universal 
as  regards  man,  is  based  chiefly  upon  the  existence  of 
wide-spread  traditions  of  an  event  more  or  less  similar 
to  that  recorded  in  Genesis.  All  the  way,  in  fact,  from 
China  to  North  and  South  America,  we  find  traditions 
of  a  deluge  in  which  the  whole  human  race  was  de- 
stroyed, with  the  exception  of  a  single  family  or  a 
small  number  of  persons  who  escaped  on  some  sort  of 
boat  or  raft.  In  very  many  cases  the  tradition  includes 
also  the  idea  that  those  few  survivors  were  enabled 
to  escape  by  some  sort  of  supernatural  warning  which 
they  owed  to  the  special  favor  of  the  gods.  It  has 
been  hastily  assumed  that  all  these  deluge  traditions 
must  refer  to  the  same  event.  Even  where  the  mythol- 
ogy of  a  single  people,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ancient 
Greeks,  preserves  the  tradition  of  several  distinct  del- 
uges, it  has  been  assumed  that  they  must  all  be  con- 
sidered as  more  or  less  distorted  representations  of 
the  one  Noachian  Deluge.  This  assumption,  however, 
is  certainly  not  supported  by  any  adequate  evidence, 
and  is,  in  all  probability,  false.  In  an  early  stage  of 
civilization,  when  there  was  little  opportunity  for  inter- 
communication between  the  inhabitants  of  different 
districts  of  country,  the  few  survivors  of  a  district 
which  had  been  inundated  and  mostly  depopulated  by 
an  earthquake  wave  or  some  other  catastrophe,  would 
naturally  start  a  tradition  in  which  they  would  be  rep- 

120 


Traditions  of  a  Deluge 

resented  as  the  sole  survivors  from  a  universal  de- 
struction of  the  human  race.  In  some  cases,  there  are 
not  wanting  in  the  deluge  traditions  local  features 
which  pretty  plainly  indicate  that  the  event  upon  which 
the  tradition  was  founded  occurred  in  a  locality  widely 
removed  from  the  scene  of  the  Noachian  Deluge.  The 
Chinese  tradition  of  a  deluge  is,  in  all  probability,  due 
to  one  of  the  numerous  migrations  of  the  River  Hoang 
Ho  across  its  vast  delta  plain.  The  movements  of  that 
uneasy  river  have  again  and  again  within  historic  times 
caused  immense  loss  of  life.  When  two  peoples  are 
blended  into  one  by  conquest  and  subsequent  inter- 
marriage, the  traditions  of  one  race  are  often  to  a 
greater  or  less  extent  adopted  by  the  other.  There 
is  reason  to  suspect  that  the  traditions  of  a  deluge  in 
some  savage  tribes  are  due  to  the  influence  of  Jesuit 
missionaries,  who,  in  the  palmy  days  of  that  order, 
penetrated  to  the  most  distant  parts  of  the  earth,  and 
who,  though  they  did  not  succeed  in  producing  very 
enlightened  Christians  or  developing  a  very  high  style 
of  Christian  civilization,  did  succeed  in  teaching  ef- 
fectively the  stories  of  Hebrew  tradition.  Even  if  a 
deluge  tradition  were  universal,  the  fact  would  not 
prove  a  universal  deluge.* 

But,  though  deluge  traditions  are  widely  diffused, 
they  are  by  no  means  universal.  No  deluge  tradition 
has  been  reported  from  any  Negro  people,  except  the 
inhabitants  of  the  Andaman  Islands,  who  are  prob- 

*  See  the  excellent  analysis  of  deluge  traditions  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of 
th^  Bible,  art.  Flood,  by  F.  H.  Woods. 

121 


Genesis  and  Geology 

ably  closely  related  to  the  Negro  race.  The  ancient 
Egyptians,  who,  though  they  lived  in  Africa,  were  not 
of  Negro  but  of  Caucasian  race,  had  no  deluge  tradi- 
tion. There  is,  then,  obviously  no  satisfactory  evidence 
of  a  universal  deluge  afforded  by  tradition. 

It  may  be  affirmed  without  any  hesitation  that  a 
deluge  universal  as  regards  the  human  race,  at  the  date 
given  by  the  traditional  chronology,  B.  C.  2348,  is 
utterly  incredible.  As  has  been  noticed  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  antiquity  of  man,  it  is  probable  that  the 
civilizations  of  Babylonia,  Egypt,  and  China  extend 
back  to  or  beyond  that  date.  A  universal  deluge  could 
only  have  been  possible  at  a  time  vastly  earlier.  The 
universality  of  the  Noachian  Deluge  as  regards  the  hu- 
man race  can  be  maintained  only  on  the  supposition 
that  the  chronology  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  Genesis, 
based  on  the  genealogy  from  Adam  to  Noah,  is  sub- 
stantially correct,  or  that  its  error  is  on  the  side  of  a 
time  estimate  too  long  rather  than  too  short ;  and  that, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  chronology  of  the  eleventh  chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  based  on  the  genealogy  from  Noah  to 
Abraham,  gives  a  time  estimate  which  is  only  a  small 
fraction  of  the  true  duration.  It  is  needless  to  say  that 
this  twofold  supposition  is  extremely  improbable.  On 
general  principles,  the  earlier  genealogy  should  be  the 
less,  rather  than  the  more,  nearly  complete. 

It  is  evident,  in  general,  that  we  have  in  the  book  of 
Genesis  nothing  that  approaches  the  character  of  re- 
liable history  till  about  the  time  of  Abraham.  The 
comparison  of  the  teachings  of  science  with  the  record 

122 


NoACHiAN  Deluge  not  Universal 

of  Genesis  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  the  date  and 
method  of  creation  of  the  earth  and  of  man,  and  the 
early  history  of  the  human  race,  are  not  matter  of  di- 
vine revelation,  but  matter  for  scientific  investigation. 
An  agreement  between  the  results  of  scientific  investi- 
gation and  Hebrew  tradition  is  neither  to  be  sought  nor 
expected. 

123 


The  Unity  of  the  Universe 


in. — The  Unity  of  the  Universe 

The  third  and  most  important  of  the  characteristic 
ideas  entering  into  the  scientific  conception  of  the  uni- 
verse is  that  of  the  unity  of  the  universe.  We  have 
aheady  referred  to  Newton's  discovery  of  universal 
gravitation,  which  has  probahly  been  more  important 
in  its  influence  upon  human  thought  than  any  other 
single  discovery  in  the  whole  history  of  science.  New- 
ton's discovery  was  the  completion  and  culmination  of 
that  series  of  astronomical  discoveries  which  gave  to 
mankind  a  true  view  of  the  relation  of  the  earth  to  the 
heavenly  bodies,  and  a  somewhat  adequate  conception 
of  the  immensity  of  the  universe.  But  that  discovery 
of  Newton's  was  perhaps  even  more  important  in  an- 
other aspect  as  the  beginning  of  the  development  of 
the  idea  of  the  unity  of  nature. 

In  the  century  just  ended,  the  investigations  of  sci- 
ence have  revealed,  with  a  fullness  not  dreamed  of 
before,  a  threefold  unity  in  nature — a  unity  of  sub- 
stance, a  unity  of  force,  and  a  unity  of  process. 

In  two  ways  we  are  able  to  learn  somewhat  of  the 
chemical  constitution  of  parts  of  the  universe  outside 
of  the  earth.  The  extra-terrestrial  origin  of  meteorites 
has  come  to  be  universally  admitted ;  and  the  fact  that 
those  wanderers  through  space  contain  no  element 
which  is  not  known  to  terrestrial  chemistry  is  pro- 
foundly significant  in  its  teaching  of  the  unity  of  sub- 

124 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

stance  throughout  the  universe.  The  spectroscope  has 
afforded  us  a  method  of  investigating  the  constitution 
of  luminous  bodies,  and  so  has  given  us  some  knowl- 
edge of  the  chemical  composition,  not  only  of  the  sun, 
but  also  of  the  immensely  more  remote  stars  and  neb- 
ulae. In  all  these  bodies  whose  light  has  been  subjected 
to  spectrum  analysis,  elements  have  been  discovered 
which  are  well  known  upon  the  earth.  In  the  solar 
eclipse  of  1868,  a  conspicuous  yellow  line  was  observed 
in  the  spectrum  of  the  solar  protuberances  which  could 
not  be  identified  with  any  terrestrial  element  then 
known.  The  hypothetical  element  to  which  that  yel- 
low line  was  due  was  named  heliurn.  Within  the  last 
few  years  that  element  has  been  recognized  in  several 
rare  minerals  which  occur  upon  the  earth.  Thus  it 
appears  that  one  of  the  rarer  elements  in  terrestrial 
chemistry  was  first  discovered  in  the  sun. 

The  Conservation  of  Energy* 

The  idea  of  a  unity  of  force  in  the  universe  has 
taken  shape  in  the  modern  scientific  doctrine  of  the 
conservation  of  energy. 

That  we  may  understand  the  significance  of  the  se- 
ries of  scientific  researches  which  have  culminated  in 
the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of 


*  Whevvell,  History  of  the  Inductive  Sciences,  gives  fully  the  history  of  the 
phlogistic  theory,  of  the  development  of  modern  chemistry,  and  of  the  undula- 
te )ry  theory  of  light.  Tyndall,  Heat  Considered  as  a  Afode  of  Motion,  gives  a 
brilliant  account  of  the  dynamical  theory  of  heat.  Youmans,  The  Correlation 
and  Conservation  of  Forces,  gives  in  convenient  form  a  collection  of  early  ex- 
positions of  the  doctrine  of  conservation  of  energy.  See  also  Stewart,  The. 
Conservation  of  Energy. 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

energy,  let  tis  ask  ourselves  what  happens  in  the  famil- 
iar occurrence  of  the  combustion  of  wood,  or  coal, 
or  any  other  combustible.  There  is  a  conspicuous  evo- 
lution of  light  and  heat,  the  original  substance  disap- 
pears, but  some  sort  of  residue  is  left,  which  may,  ac- 
cording to  circumstances,  be  solid,  liquid,  or  gaseous. 
But  what  is  the  real  nature  and  meaning  of  the  process  ? 
Some  of  the  ancient  philosophers,  in  their  semi-mytho- 
logical mode  of  interpreting  the  facts  of  nature,  said 
that  the  element  of  fire,  imprisoned  in  the  combustible 
substance,  was  set  free,  and  escaped  into  the  empyrean, 
the  lofty  abode  of  the  pure  and  changeless  element  of 
fire. 

The  first  definite  scientific  theory  of  the  process  of 
combustion  was  given  by  Stahl  in  1697.  According 
to  his  view,  the  essential  thing  in  the  process  of  com- 
bustion was  the  escaping  from  the  combustible  of  a 
substance  called  phlogiston.  According  to  the  phlo- 
gistic theory,  the  phlogiston  could  escape  from  one 
body  only  when  some  other  body  was  ready  to  absorb 
it  and  enter  into  combination  with  it.  In  ordinary 
cases  of  combustion,  the  phlogiston  which  left  the  va- 
rious combustibles  passed  into  the  atmosphere,  which 
was  supposed  to  be  very  far  from  saturation  with 
phlogiston.  When  oxygen  was  discovered,  it  was 
found  to  be  a  much  more  energetic  supporter  of  com- 
bustion than  ordinary  atmospheric  air.  This  was  at 
once  explained  by  the  supposition  that  oxygen  was  des- 
titute of  phlogiston,  or  at  least  more  nearly  so  than 
ordinary  air,  and  possessed  therefore  a  more  intense 

126 


The  Theory  of  Phlogiston 

avidity  for  that  substance.  Oxygen  was  accordingly 
named  by  Priestley,  its  discoverer,  ''dephlogisticated 
air."  It  v^as,  however,  a  puzzling  and  inexplicable 
fact  that  in  some  cases  it  could  readily  be  shown  (we 
now  know  it  is  always  true)  that  the  substance  result- 
ing from  the  combustion  is  heavier  than  the  original 
combustible.  It  was  certainly  a  paradoxical  condition 
that  the  loss  of  one  of  its  constituents  should  increase 
the  weight  of  a  body. 

The  abandonment  of  the  phlogistic  theory  and  the 
establishment  of  the  modern  chemical  theory  were 
chiefly  due  to  the  researches  of  the  French  chemist, 
Lavoisier,  whose  results  were  given  to  the  world  in  a 
series  of  memoirs  commencing  about  1775.  As  every- 
one now  knows,  the  chemical  change  which  takes  place 
in  ordinary  cases  of  combustion  is  not  the  loss  of  any 
part  of  the  substance  of  the  combustible,  but  the  union 
of  that  substance  with  oxygen.  In  Lavoisier's  experi- 
ments, mercury  was  made  alternately  to  take  on  oxy- 
gen, being  thus  converted  into  the  red  oxide  of  mer- 
cury, and  to  give  off  its  oxygen,  and  thus  be  restored 
to  its  metallic  condition.  Since  the  time  of  Lavoisier 
there  has  been  no  question  about  the  purely  chemical 
side  of  the  process  of  combustion.  We  have  learned 
that  in  all  physical  and  chemical  changes  there  is 
neither  creation  nor  destruction  of  matter.  Complex 
molecules  may  be  broken  up  into  simpler  constituents, 
or  elements  may  be  united  into  complex  molecules ;  but 
in  all  chemical  changes  the  quantity  of  matter  remains 
constant.     Every  chemical  process  may  be  expressed 

127 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

in  the  form  of  an  equation,  in  which  the  atomic  sym- 
bols on  one^side  of  the  equation  are  so  grouped  as  to 
represent  the  arrangement  of  the  atoms  before  the  re- 
action in  question,  and  the  symbols  on  the  other  side 
of  the  equation  are  so  grouped  as  to  represent  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  atoms  after  the  reaction.  The  num- 
ber of  atoms  of  each  element  will  be  identical  on  the 
two  sides  of  the  equation.  Thus  we  find  perpetual 
change  in  form,  but  neither  increase  nor  diminution  in 
the  quantity  of  matter.  That,  in  the  broad  view,  was 
the  truth  taught  the  world  by  the  researches  of 
Lavoisier. 

But  the  purely  chemical  theory  of  Lavoisier  gave 
no  account  of  the  heat  and  light  which  are  so  frequent 
accompaniments  of  chemical  change,  and  which,  in  or- 
dinary cases  of  combustion,  are  the  most  conspicuous 
phenomena  of  the  process.  It  was  a  long  time  before 
any  satisfactory  explanation  of  these  phenomena  and 
of  their  relation  to  chemical  change  could  be  given.  In 
the  meanwhile,  heat  and  light  haunted  like  ghosts  alike 
the  laboratory  of  the  chemist  and  physicist  and  the 
workshop  of  the  artisan.  Like  their  fellow  ghost,  elec- 
tricity, they  were  remarkably  conspicuous  in  their 
manifestations,  though  utterly  inexplicable  in  their  na- 
ture. They  were  supposed  to  be  material  things, 
though  destitute  of  weight.  The  most  delicate  balance 
could  detect  no  difference  between  the  weight  of  a 
piece  of  cold  iron  and  that  of  the  same  piece  of  iron 
when  hot.  They  were  called  "imponderable  bodies," 
or  "imponderable  agents,"  the  latter  phrase  being  a 

128 


The  Imponderable  Agents 

convenient  one,   as  not  committing  its  user  to  any 
theory  in  regard  to  their  nature. 

But,  though  the  prevalent  belief  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  and  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
was  that  light,  heat,  and  electricity  are  material  bodies, 
their  lack  of  power  to  respond  in  any  measurable  de- 
gree to  the  attraction  of  gravitation  could  not  but  sug- 
gest doubts  in  regard  to  their  material  nature.  As  long 
ago  as  1690  Huyghens  had  taught  that  light  was  an 
undulation.  His  contemporary,  the  great  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,  seriously  considered  the  question  whether 
light  might  not  be  some  form  of  undulatory  move- 
ment, but  concluded  that  the  phenomena  with  which 
he  was  acquainted  were,  on  the  whole,  best  accounted 
for  by  the  supposition  that  light  consisted  of  extremely 
minute  material  particles.  The  mighty  influence  of 
Newton's  great  name  served  in  this  case  to  maintain 
a  false  theory  in  general  acceptance  for  a  century  and 
a  half.  It  was  not,  indeed,  until  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  that  the  undulatory  theory  of  light 
attracted  general  attention.  The  views  of  Huyghens 
were  for  the  most  p^^rt  ignored  until  they  were  pre- 
sented in  new  form  by  Thomas  Young  in  1801  and  by 
Fresnel  in  181 5.  Dr.  Young  was  well-nigh  a  universal 
genius,  busying  himself  with  all  sorts  of  investigations, 
from  the  theory  of  light  and  color  to  the  deciphering 
of  Egyptian  hieroglyphics.  Fresnel,  though  possessed 
of  less  varied  and  versatile  genius  than  Young,  was  a 
consummate  mathematician,  and  by  his  great  mathe- 
matical ability  was  enabled  to  develop  the  undulatory 

129 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

theory  of  light  in  a  form  so  ingenious  and  beautiful 
as  to  compel  the  respectful  attention  of  all  who  were 
competent  to  understand  his  reasoning.  For  many 
years,  however,  after  the  publication  of  the  first  of 
Fresnel's  memoirs,  the  conflict  between  the  two  theo- 
ries continued.  But  the  undulatory  theory  was  stead- 
ily gaining,  and  the  corpuscular  theory  losing  ground. 
As  the  knowledge  of  the  phenomena  of  light  in- 
creased, and  it  became  necessary  to  account  for  polari- 
zation, double  refraction,  and  other  phenomena  which 
were  investigated,  it  was  found  that  they  could  be 
accounted  for  simply  and  consistently  on  the  undula- 
tory theory,  while  the  corpuscular  theory  could  only 
account  for  them  by  the  accumulation  of  cumbersome 
and  unsatisfactory  hypotheses.  The  story  of  the  prog- 
ress of  the  undulatory  theory  of  light  was  analogous 
to  that  of  the  progress  of  the  Copernican  astronomy. 
The  Ptolemaic  astronomy  could  indeed  invent  some 
combination  of  epicycles  to  formulate  each  newly  dis- 
covered planetary  irregularity;  but  no  complex  sup- 
plementary hypotheses  were  required  by  Kepler's  laws 
and  Newton's  theory  of  gravitation. 

As  a  consequence  of  Fresnel's  theory,  Sir  William 
Rowan  Hamilton  predicted  the  remarkable  phenomena 
called  respectively  external  and  internal  conical  refrac- 
tion, which  had  never  been  observed  until  an  experi- 
ment was  devised  by  Humphrey  Lloyd  to  test  Hamil- 
ton's prediction.  Such  prediction  of  phenomena  hither- 
to unobserved  is,  of  course,  very  strong  confirmation 
of  the  truth  of  a  theory.     But  it  was  not  until  1850 

130 


The  Undulatory  Theory  of  Light 

that  a  crucial  experiment  was  devised  by  which  a  defi- 
nite conclusion  in  regard  to  the  two  theories  could  be 
reached.  The  familiar  fact  that  rays  of  light  passing 
from  a  rarer  into  a  denser  medium  are  refracted  to- 
ward a  line  perpendicular  to  the  limiting  surface,  was 
explained  plausibly  enough  by  each  of  the  two  con- 
tending theories;  but  the  explanation  on  the  basis  of 
the  corpuscular  theory  involved  the  assumption  that 
light  moves  more  rapidly  through  the  denser  than 
through  the  rarer  medium,  while  the  explanation  given 
by  the  undulatory  theory  involved  the  contradictory 
assumption  that  light  moves-  less  rapidly  through  the 
denser  than  through  the  rarer  medium.  If,  then,  an 
experiment  could  be  devised  which  w^ould  measure  the 
velocity  of  light  respectively  in  air  and  in  water,  the 
result  w^ould  be  a  decisive  victory  of  one  or  the  other 
of  the  contending  theories.  The  motion  of  light  is  so 
inconceivably  rapid  that  its  measurement  within  a 
small  distance  such  as  could  be  available  for  experi- 
ment seemed  almost  impossible;  but  the  difificulties 
were  overcome  by  the  experimental  skill  of  Foucault 
in  1850,  and  the  definite  determination  that  the  velocity 
of  light  in  water  is  less  than  its  velocity  in  air  estab- 
lished conclusively  the  undulatory  theory. 

In  the  case  of  heat,  as  in  the  case  of  light,  it  was 
long  ago  suspected  that  it  might  prove  to  be  a  mode 
of  motion,  but  the  series  of  investigations  by  which 
that  conclusion  was  established  belongs  almost  exclu- 
sively to  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century.  As 
long  ago  as  1620,  Lord  Bacon,  in  his  "Novum  Or- 

131 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

ganum,"  declared  heat  to  be  a  species  of  motion. 
Bacon  tells  us  explicitly  that  he  does  not  mean  that 
heat  can  be  produced  by  motion,  or  that  motion  can  be 
produced  by  heat;  but  that  he  means  absolutely  that 
heat  is  a  form  of  motion.  But  it  was  not  until  the  very 
close  of  the  eighteenth  century  that  the  question  of  the 
nature  of  heat  was  brought  prominently  before  the  sci- 
entific world  by  the  experiments  of  Count  Rumford. 
Count  Rumford  was  an  American  whose  name  was 
Benjamin  Thompson.  He  left  his  native  country  be- 
cause he  took  the  loyalist  side  on  the  outbreak  of  the 
American  Revolution;  and  in  1798  he  was  living  in 
Munich,  and  was  in  the  service  of  the  Bavarian  Gov- 
ernment as  Minister  of  War.  He  had  charge  of  the 
manufacture  of  cannon  for  the  Bavarian  army,  and  his 
attention  was  specially  called  to  the  heat  produced  in 
the  boring  of  cannon.  The  fragments  of  metal  that 
came  out  of  the  bore  were  observed  to  have  a  high 
temperature,  and  Rumford  began  to  reason  as  to  the 
source  of  the  heat.  Those  chips  of  metal  had  appar- 
ently suffered  no  change,  having  the  same  capacity  for 
heat  as  other  pieces  of  similar  metal.  In  some  of  his 
experimental  investigations,  Rumford  caused  a  piston 
to  revolve  in  a  cylinder  enclosed  in  a  box  of  water,  and 
heated  the  water  to  boiling  by  the  friction  of  the  piston 
in  the  cylinder.  There  appeared  to  be  no  limit  to  the 
amount  of  heat  which  might  thus  be  developed  by  fric- 
tion. The  inference  which  Rumford  drew  from  his 
experiments,  and  which  seems  unquestionably  a  sound 
one,  may  be  stated  in  his  own  words:  "Anything 
.    132 


The  Mechanical  Equivalent  of  Heat 

which  an  insulated  body  or  system  of  bodies  can  con- 
tinue to  furnish  without  Hmitation  cannot  possibly  be 
a  material  substance."  In  the  early  part  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  Sir  Humphry  Davy  was  experimenting 
in  other  ways  with  reference  to  the  question  of  the 
nature  of  heat,  and  reached  the  same  conclusions  as 
Rumford.  The  work  of  Rumford  and  Davy  found  its 
completion  in  the '  determination  of  the  mechanical 
equivalent  of  heat  by  Joule  in  1843.  Joule  determined 
by  a  series  of  experiments  that  the  amount  of  heat  that 
will  raise  the  temperature  of  a  pound  of  water  one 
degree  Fahrenheit  is  the  quantitative  equivalent  of  the 
mechanical  work  of  lifting  a  pound  772  feet,  or  'j'jz 
pounds  one  foot,  in  opposition  to  gravitation.  In 
technical  language,  the  mechanical  equivalent  of  heat 
is  said  to  be  772  footpounds.  This  definite  quantita- 
tive result  is  obviously  a  great  step  in  advance  of  the 
purely  qualitative  conclusions  of  Rumford  and  Davy. 
They  had  reached  the  conclusion  that  heat  could  not 
be  a  material  body,  and  must  therefore  be  some  sort 
of  motion.  Joule  established  an  exact  quantitative  ra- 
tio between  that  form  of  molecular  motion  which  we 
call  heat,  and  the  forms  of  molar  motion  with  which 
we  are  acquainted  in  ordinary  mechanics. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that,  in  the  announcement  of  the 
mechanical  equivalent  of  heat.  Joule  was  slightly  an- 
ticipated by  a  German  physician  named  Mayer.  May- 
er's conclusion,  published  in  1842,  was  reached  by  a 
very  different  method  from  that  of  Joule,  and  was 
based    in   part    on    somewhat    speculative    reasoning. 

133 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

Joule's  conclusion  was  based  upon  a  course  of  very 
rigorous  experimentation.  It  has  generally  been  felt 
that  the  patient  experimentation  of  Joule  established 
the  important  doctrine  of  the  mechanical  equivalent  of 
heat  on  a  sounder  basis  than  the  brilliant  speculation 
of  Mayer.  And  so,  by  common  consent,  in  spite  of 
the  priority  of  Mayer,  the  number  772,  which  ex- 
presses the  ratio  between  heat  and  mechanical  motion 
has  been  called  by  the  name  of  Joule,  and  is  expressed 
in  formulas  by  the  initial  of  his  name. 

Thus,  about  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
light  and  heat  were  both  conclusively  shown  to  be  not 
material  bodies,  but  modes  of  motion.  We  have  in- 
deed come  to  regard  light  and  heat  only  as  different 
phenomenal  manifestations  of  the  same  energy.  From 
the  sun  and  from  other  incandescent  bodies,  waves  of 
radiant  energy  stream  out  constantly  in  vast  complex- 
ity, ranging  in  wave-length  through  a  very  long  gamut. 
All  these  waves  of  energy,  long  and  short,  are  capable 
of  producing  the  phenomena  of  heat.  Those  waves  of 
energy  which  fall  within  a  certain  limit  as  regards 
wave-length,  are  capable,  in  addition,  of  exciting,  when 
they  impinge  upon  the  retina  of  the  eye,  the  sensation 
of  light  and  color;  but  the  difference  between  these 
luminous  waves  and  the  waves  of  greater  and  lesser 
wave-length  beyond  the  limits  of  the  visible  spectrum 
is  only  physiological.  It  is  only  that  our  eyes  are  able 
to  derive  the  sensation  of  color  from  waves  which  fall 
within  those  limits  of  wave-length  and  not  from  longer 
or  shorter  waves. 

134 


Forms  of  Energy  Mutually  Convertible 

Joule  and  Mayer  proved  a  definite  quantitative  re- 
lation between  heat  and  mechanical  motion.  The  truth 
which  they  proved  was  quickly  expanded  into  the  broad 
induction  that  all  forms  of  physical  energy  are  thus 
quantitatively  related  and  are  mutually  convertible. 
The  molar  motion  of  ordinary  mechanics,  the  molecu- 
lar movements  of  heat  and  electricity,  the  atomic  move- 
ments which  form  the  subject  of  chemical  science,  are 
all  quantitatively  related  and  mutually  convertible. 
Heat  may  be  developed  by  friction  of  masses  of  matter, 
or  by  collisions  of  atoms  which  rush  together  in  chem- 
ical combination.  The  energy  derived  from  the  com- 
bustion of  carbon  in  a  steam  engine  may  move  a  train 
of  cars  or  drive  the  machinery  of  a  factory,  or  may  be 
converted  into  electricity,  and  that  electricity  in  turn 
may  be  converted  by  an  electric  motor  into  mechanical 
motion.  And  thus  is  reached  a  broad  conclusion  in 
regard  to  energy  parallel  to  that  reached  by  Lavoisier 
in  regard  to  matter.  As  Lavoisier  showed  that  in  all 
chemical  changes  there  is  neither  creation  nor  destruc- 
tion of  matter,  but  only  rearrangement,  so  we  now  be- 
lieve that  in  all  physical  and  chemical  changes  there  is 
neither  creation  nor  destruction  of  energy,  but  endless 
metamorphosis  of  energy  into  different  forms. 

In  these  revelations  of  physics  there  comes  back  to 
us  in  a  new  form  the  truth  which  was  represented  in 
distorted  form  by  the  old  phlogistic  theory,  and  which 
was  ignored  by  the  purely  chemical  theory  of  Lavoisier 
and  his  followers.  The  believers  in  the  phlogistic  the- 
ory recognized  in  the  emission  of  light  and  heat  from 

135 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

the  burning  combustible  a  sign  that  something  was 
going  out  of  it.  That  something  they  wrongly  inter- 
preted as  a  material  substance.  There  is  indeed  some- 
thing which  the  burning  combustible  loses;  but  that 
something  is  no  material  substance,  but  potential 
energy. 

It  is  impossible  to  recognize  the  truth  of  the  con- 
servation of  energy  in  the  realm  of  inorganic  matter 
without  raising  the  question  whether  that  law  also 
holds  good  in  regard  to  the  processes  of  the  living  body 
as  seen  in  plants  and  animals.  It  had  been  in  general 
vaguely  supposed  that  the  processes  which  go  on  in 
living  bodies  were  radically  different  from  the  purely 
physical  and  chemical  processes  of  the  inanimate 
world ;  and,  until  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
such  expressions  as  "vital  force"  were  in  frequent  use, 
to  express  the  unknown  agency  to  which  were  due  the 
peculiar  phenomena  of  living  beings.  But  the  genius 
of  Mayer  had  scarcely  got  hold  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
mechanical  equivalent  of  heat  before  he  perceived  the 
far-reaching  conclusions  to  which  the  theory  of  the 
conservation  of  energy  would  lead.  Only  three  years 
after  his  announcement  of  the  mechanical  equivalent 
of  heat,  he  published  a  remarkable  paper  on  the  move- 
ments of  animals  and  plants,  in  which  he  maintains 
that  the  energy  manifested  in  those  movements  is  de- 
rived from  the  chemical  changes  that  take  place  in  the 
food.  He  had,  in  fact,  already  grasped  the  modern 
doctrine  that  the  animal  body  is  not  a  creator  of  force, 
but  only  a  machine  by  which  the  energy  of  chemical 

136 


Correlation  of  Physical  and  Vital  Forces 

action  is  converted  into  the  energy  of  heat  and  me- 
chanical motion. 

Mayer's  essay  attracted  comparatively  little  atten- 
tion. It  was  published  in  a  rather  obscure  German 
periodical,  and  found  few  readers  outside  of  Germany ; 
and  the  world  was  not  quite  ready  to  accept  its  far- 
reaching  conclusions.  The  classical  memoir  *'On  the 
Conservation  of  Force,"  by  Helmholtz,  was  published 
in  1847.  In  the  conclusion  of  this  essay,  the  applica- 
tion of  the  law  of  conservation  to  the  processes  going 
on  in  living  bodies  was  briefly  but  distinctly  an- 
nounced. Still  earlier  Helmholtz  had  been  engaged  in 
researches  on  the  consumption  of  matter  and  on  the 
evolution  of  heat  in  muscular  action,  which  fore- 
shadowed the  great  generalization.  William  B.  Car- 
penter, the  English  physiologist,  published  his  essay 
"On  the  Mutual  Relations  of  the  Vital  and  Physical 
Forces"  in  1850.*  A  few  years  later,  in  1859,  sub- 
stantially the  same  views  were  published  in  this  coun- 
try by  Joseph  Le  Conte,f  who,  though  chiefly  known 
as  a  geologist,  made  important  and  valuable  contribu- 
tions to  other  branches  of  science. 

According  to  our  present  views  of  the  dynamics  of 
living  bodies,  the  growth  of  vegetation,  which  under 
ordinary  conditions  takes  place  only  under  the  influ- 
ence of  sunlight,  is  due  to  the  radiant  energy  of  the 

*  Philosophical  Transactions,  1850,  Another  essay  by  Carpenter,  published 
a  few  years  later,  is  contained  in  Youmans,  The  Correlation  and  Conserva- 
tion 0/  Forces. 

\  American  Journal  of  Science  and  Arts,  2d  series,  vol.  xxviii,  p.  305.  Le 
Conte's  article,  in  revised  form,  was  republished  in  the  appendix  of  Stewart, 
1  he  Conservation  of  Energy. 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

sunbeams.  The  energy  of  the  sunbeams  tears  asunder 
the  molecules  of  carbon  dioxide  in  the  atmosphere,  and 
the  carbon  is  stored  up  in  vegetable  tissue,  while  the 
oxygen  is  given  back  to  the  atmosphere.  In  the  storing 
of  carbon  in  the  vegetable  tissues  there  is  also  a  storing 
of  potential  energy;  and  in  its  subsequent  oxidation, 
in  the  plant  itself  or  in  an  animal  which  has  eaten  the 
plant,  the  potential  energy  may  become  energy  of  heat 
or  of  motion.  The  germination  of  the  seed,  which 
takes  place  in  subterranean  darkness,  the  varied  move- 
ments which  are  exhibited  in  some  degree  by  plants 
and  in  vastly  greater  degree  by  animals,  the  develop- 
ment of  heat  which  maintains  the  temperature  of  many 
organisms  far  above  that  of  the  surrounding  medium, 
are  all  the  result  of  the  oxidation — the  virtual  com- 
bustion— of  the  combustible  materials  stored  up  in  veg- 
etable and  animal  tissues.  The  animal  body  is,  then,  a 
machine  in  which,  as  in  the  steam  engine,  the  combus- 
tion of  carbon  and  other  combustible  elements  is  made 
to  furnish  energy  which  reveals  itself  in  heat  and  me- 
chanical motion.  In  one  respect,  indeed,  the  animal 
machine  is  very  different  from  the  steam  engine.  It 
is  a  self-repairing  machine.  It  is  as  though  we  could 
feed  the  steam  engine,  not  only  with  coal  for  fuel,  but 
with  iron  and  brass  and  other  materials  which  might 
be  necessary  to  repair  the  waste  of  the  working  parts 
of  the  machine.  So,  in  the  animal  body,  a  part  of  the 
food  serves  as  fuel  for  the  production  of  energy,  but  an- 
other part  serves  to  rebuild  the  continually  wasting  tis- 
sues of  the  body,  and  so  to  keep  the  machine  in  repair. 

138 


I 


The  Animal  Body  a  Machine 

But,  though  the  animal  body  is  vastly  more  com- 
plex than  any  machine  of  human  invention,  there  is 
no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  law  of  the  conservation 
of  energy  holds  sway  in  the  animal  body  precisely  as 
in  other  heat  engines.* 

But  we  must  recognize  not  only  that  muscular  ac- 
tion comes  within  the  scope  of  the  law  of  the  conserva- 
tion of  energy,  but  that  the  same  is  true  of  the  more 
subtile  processes  involved  in  the  operations  of  nerve 
and  brain.  It  has  long  been  known  that  there  are  cer- 
tain obvious  analogies  between  nerve  force  and  other 
physical  forces.  The  nerve  force  is  not  a  spiritual 
potency  which  diffuses  itself  without  relation  to  mate- 
rial conditions.  It  is  transmitted  along  the  nerve  with 
a  measurable  velocity,  as  electricity  is  transmitted 
along  a  conducting  wire.  The  velocity  of  the  nerve 
force  is,  in  fact,  considerably  less  than  that  of  the 
transmission  of  electricity  along  a  good  conductor,  be- 
ing in  warm-blooded  animals  only  about  one  hundred 
feet  per  second,  and  in  cold-blooded  animals  consid- 
erably less. 

*  The  most  nearly  complete  experimental  proof  of  the  application  of  the  law 
of  conservation  of  energy  to  the  human  body  has  been  obtained  by  the  experi- 
ments with  the  Atwater-Rosa  calorimeter,  conducted  by  Professors  Atwater, 
Rosa,  and  Benedict,  and  their  associates,  in  the  laboratory  of  Wesleyan  Uni- 
versity. The  plan  of  these  experiments  involved  very  accurate  determination 
of  the  chemical  composition  and  potential  energ;y  of  the  food  consumed,  the 
amounts  of  carbon  and  nitrogen  discharged  from  the  body,  and  the  amount  of 
energ-y  given  off  by  the  body  as  heat  and  n  echanical  work.  The  average  re- 
sult of  forty-five  experiments,  extending  over  periods  amounting  in  the  aggre- 
gate to  one  hundred  and  forty-three  days,  was  that  the  energy  determined  as 
given  off  from  the  body  did  not  differ  bv  any  measurable  quantity  from  the 
calculated  potential  ener^ry  of  the  materials  oxidized  in  the  body.  A  discus- 
sion of  some  of  these  experiments  may  be  found  in  Physical  Review^  vol.  ix, 
pp.  129,  214,  vol.  X,  p.  129 ;  Btilletin  No.  109  of  the  Office  of  Experiment 
Stations,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture.  Tlie  latest  and  most  complete 
account  of  these  investigations  is  given  in  Bulletin  No.  136  of  same  series. 


The  Conservation  of  Energy 

Somewhat  is  known  also  in  regard  to  the  physical 
changes  going  on  in  the  brain.  The  blood  coming  from 
the  brain  has  a  higher  temperature  than  the  arterial 
blood,  and  contains  less  oxygen  and  more  carbon 
dioxide.*  Some  part  of  the  potential  energy  of  the 
nutritive  materials  supplied  to  the  brain  is  converted 
into  heat.  Increased  activity  of  thought  or  excitement 
of  feeling  is  accompanied  by  a  more  rapid  blood  cur- 
rent through  the  brain.  The  more  rapid  chemical 
changes  find  expression  in  a  rise  of  temperature  which 
can  be  detected  by  the  application  of  thermo-electric 
apparatus  to  the  outside  of  the  head.f  The  chemical 
changes  going  on  in  the  active  brain  are  accompanied 
by  changes  in  the  appearance  of  the  cells  of  the  gray 
matter,  which  are  perfectly  recognizable  under  the 
microscope  when  cells  from  the  brains  of  animals  killed 
after  a  night's  sleep  are  compared  with  cells  from  the 
brains  of  animals  of  the  same  species  killed  after  a 
day's  activity.t 

The  conception  of  the  unity  of  nature  which  is  in- 
volved in  the  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy 
extends  not  only  through  all  space,  but  through  all 
time.  The  vegetable  tissues  whose  remains,  preserved 
from  complete  decomposition,  are  stored  up  in  the  form 
of  coal,  were  produced  by  the  agency  of  the  sunbeams 
that  shone  upon  the  earth  tens  of  millions  of  years 
ago  in  the  Carboniferous  era.     Then  as  now  the  en- 

*H.  H.  Donaldson,  in  Howell,  American  Text-book  o/  Physiology,  p.  736. 

t  J.  S.  Lombard,  in  Proceedings  0/  Royal  Society  of  London,  vol.  xxvii, 
p.  462  ;  Ladd,  Elements  of  Physiological  Psychology,  p.  242  ;  Luys,  The  Brain 
and  its  Functions,  p.  76. 

X  H.  H.  Donaldson,  in  Howell,  American  Text-book  0/  Physiology,  p.  631. 

140 


Fossil  Sunbeams 

ergy  of  the  sunbeams  tore  asunder  the  molecules  of 
carbon  dioxide  in  the  atmosphere,  and  stored  up  the 
carbon  in  living  tissues;  then  as  now  that  energy  of 
the  sunbeam  was  converted  into  the  potential  energy 
of  the  carbon  atoms.  And  so,  when  we  warm  our 
dwellings  by  the  burning  of  coal,  and  light  them  by 
the  burning  of  gas  derived  from  coal,  or  by  electricity 
produced  by  a  dynamo  which  is  run  by  a  coal-fed 
steam  engine,  we  are  warming  and  lighting  our  dwell- 
ings with  the  sunbeams  of  the  Carboniferous  era.  The 
flux  of  energy  from  one  form  to  another  is  continuous, 
but  the  stock  of  energy  remains  unchanged  through 
measureless  eons. 

The  only  point  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  conserva- 
tion of  energy  has  been  supposed  to  come  into  collision 
with  theological  belief  is  in  regard  to  the  application 
of  the  doctrine  to  the  actions  of  the  nervous  system. 
When  we  come  to  recognize  that  the  processes  which 
go  on  in  the  human  brain,  and  which  reveal  themselves 
in  our  states  of  consciousness,  are  correlated  w'ith 
purely  physical  and  chemical  changes  which  go  on  in 
the  inorganic  world,  the  question  is  inevitably  sug- 
gested, whether  there  is  any  other  than  a  material 
element  involved  in  those  cerebral  changes;  whether 
there  is  a  spiritual  entity  distinct  from  the  material 
organism,  while  using  that  material  organism  as  a 
means  to  its  ends,  or  whether  our  psychological  expe- 
riences are  simply  and  solely  affections  of  the  material 
organism.  It  will  be  convenient  for  us,  however,  to 
defer  the  discussion  of  this  question  for  the  present. 

141 


Coincidences  in  the  Planetary  Movements 

denborg,  Buffon,  and  other  writers  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  Though  Laplace  had  been  anticipated  by 
Kant,  and  in  some  degree  by  others,  the  tlieory  is  most 
commonly  accredited  to  him;  and  rightly,  for  the 
credit  of  a  scientific  theory  belongs  not  to  hirn  in  whose 
mind  the  idea  first  arises  as  a  conjecture,  but  to  him 
who  gives  to  the  idea  so  definite  a  form,  and  who  sup- 
ports it  with  such  wealth  of  knowledge,  as  to  secure 
for  it  consideration  and  acceptance. 

The  evidence  upon  which  Laplace  based  the  nebular 
theory  is  found  in  the  remarkable  coincidences  which 
exist  in  the  movements  of  the  planets.  A  certain 
amount  of  coincidence  in  the  planetary  movements 
would,  indeed,  be  necessitated  by  the  Newtonian  theory 
of  gravitation,  independently  of  any  conception  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  planets.  Whatever  the  origin  of  a 
planet  might  have  been,  the  attraction  of  the  central 
sun  would  constrain  it  to  move  in  an  orbit  whose  form 
would  be  some  one  of  the  conic  sections,  and  to  move 
with  a  velocity  conforming  to  the  law  that  the  radius 
vector  describes  equal  areas  in  equal  times.  But  the 
actual  movements  of  the  planets  show  a  far  greater 
amount  of  coincidence  than  this.  Their  orbits  are  all 
ellipses  of  very  small  eccentricity,  departing  but  little 
from  the  form  of  the  circle.  With  the  exception  of 
some  of  the  asteroids,  their  orbits  are  nearly  in  the 
plane  of  the  sun's  equator.  They  all  revolve  in  the 
same  direction  in  which  the  sun  rotates.  The  planets 
all  rotate  upon  their  axes;  and  the  planes  of  their  ro- 
tation, with  the  exception,  probably,  of  Uranus,  are 

143 


Evolution 

The  same  question  will  be  suggested  to  us  from  an- 
other point  of  view,  when  we  come  to  consider  the 
bearings  of  the  doctrine  of  organic  evolution ;  and  the 
question  can  be  better  discussed  when  we  have  before 
us  all  the  scientific  facts  which  may  be  supposed  to  have 
some  bearing  upon  it. 

Evolution 

We  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the  third  phase 
of  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  nature  characterstic  of  mod- 
ern science;  namely,  the  continuity  of  process  in  the 
history  of  nature.  The  one  word  which  expresses  this 
idea  in  modern  scientific  thought,  and  which,  more 
than  any  other  word,  gives  utterance  to  the  distinctive 
characteristic  of  the  intellectual  life  of  our  time,  is  the 
word  "Evolution."  The  modern  development  of  the 
idea  of  evolution  will  be  considered  in  three  phases: 
first,  astronomical  evolution ;  second,  geological  evolu- 
tion;  third,  biological  evolution. 

THE    NEBULAR    THEORY* 

The  doctrine  of  evolution  in  astronomy  is  repre- 
sented by  the  nebular  theory. 

The  general  conception  of  the  origin  of  the  solar 
system  which  we  call  the  nebular  theory,  was  inde- 
pendently proposed  by  Kant  in  1755,  and  by  Laplace 
in  1796.  Speculations  more  or  less  crude,  tending 
somewhat  in  the  same  direction,  may  be  found  in  Swe- 

*  Ball,  The  Earth'' s  Beginning;  Gore,  The  Visible  Universe;  Newconib, 
7  he  Stars,  a  Study  of  the  Universe;  Winchell,  World-Life,  or  Comparative 
Geology. 

142 


The  Nebular  Theory 

nearly  coincident  with  the  planes  of  their  revolution. 
With  the  exception,  probably,  of  Uranus  and  Neptune, 
the  direction  of  their  rotation  is  the  same  as  the  direc- 
tion of  their  revolution.  Most  of  the  planets  are  ac- 
companied by  a  satellite  or  by  a  number  of  satellites. 
The  direction  of  revolution  of  the  satellites  is  believed 
to  be  in  every  case  the  same  as  the  direction  of  the 
rotation  of  their  respective  planets,  and  the  planes  of 
the  orbits  of  the  satellites  are  nearly  coincident  with 
the  equatorial  planes  of  the  planets.  These  coinci- 
dences are  exceedingly  suggestive  of  the  idea  that  the 
planets  were  once  parts  of  a  common  mass,  and  that 
their  revolution  around  the  sun  is  an  inheritance  of  the 
rotation  in  which  they  shared  when  still  included  in 
the  parent  mass.  That  is,  indeed,  in  its  most  general 
form,  the  idea  of  the  nebular  theory. 

According  to  Laplace,  the  earliest  condition  of  the 
solar  system  of  which  science  gives  us  any  account  is 
that  of  a  heated  gas  dififused  through  an  immense  space 
extending  even  beyond  the  orbit  of  Neptune.  If  the 
particles  of  such  a  gas  were  subject  to  the  mutual  at- 
traction of  gravitation,  the  resultant  of  all  the  attrac- 
tions would  be  a  movement  of  each  particle  towards  the 
common  center  of  gravity — a  condensation  of  the  mass. 
If  the  further  supposition  is  made  of  independent 
movements  of  the  particles  in  various  directions  in  the 
initial  stage  of  the  history  (whatever  may  have  been 
the  cause  or  causes  of  those  movements),  the  resultant 
of  those  independent  movements,  in  connection  with 
the  gravitational  tendency  towards  the  center,  would 

144 


The  Theory  as  Developed  by  Laplace 

be  a  revolution  of  each  particle  around  the  center.  Un- 
less the  movements  of  revolution  in  opposite  directions 
exactly  balanced  each  other — a  supposition  whose  im- 
probability would  be  well-nigh  infinite, — the  aggre- 
gate effect  of  the  tendency  of  each  particle  to  revolve 
around  the  center  would  be  the  rotation  of  the  entire 
mass. 

As  condensation  progressed,  the  rotation  would 
increase  in  velocity,  since  every  particle  must  conform 
to  the  law  that  the  radius  vector  describes  equal  areas 
in  equal  times.  With  increasing  velocity  of  rotation 
there  would  come  an  increased  centrifugal  force.  Af- 
ter a  time,  at  the  periphery  of  the  rotating  mass,  where 
necessarily  the  force  of  gravitation  would  be  weakest, 
the  centrifugal  force  would  overbalance  the  force  of 
gravitation.  Peripheral  portions  of  the  mass  would 
then  be  left  behind,  as  the  central  mass,  still  condens- 
ing, shrank  away  from  them.  The  origin  of  the  planets 
is  to  be  found  in  these  peripheral  portions  of  the  nebula 
left  behind  from  time  to  time  by  reason  of  increasing 
centrifugal  force.  It  is  obvious  that  there  would  be 
three  possibilities  in  regard  to  the  subsequent  develop- 
ment of  those  peripheral  portions  of  the  nebula  which 
were  thus  left  behind.  If  the  mass  was  almost  per- 
fectly symmetrical  and  homogeneous,  it  might  happen 
that  the  particles  left  behind  at  the  periphery  would 
be  so  uniformly  distributed  all  around  the  central  mass 
that  the  ring  of  particles  thus  formed  would  be  able  to 
maintain  itself  as  a  permanent  ring.  It  is  obvious, 
however,  that  so  perfect  symmetry  in  the  arrangement 

145 


The  Nebular  Theory 

of  the  particles  left  behind  by  the  contracting  spheroid 
would  be  likely  to  occur  only  as  a  rare  and  exceptional 
phenomenon.  It  would  seem  probable  that,  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases,  the  peripheral  ring  would  quickly 
break  up  into  fragments,  which  would  become  aggre- 
gated into  a  single  spheroidal  mass,  or  perhaps,  under 
different  conditions,  into  a  number  of  spheroidal 
masses.  The  spheroids  thus  formed  would  be  the  plan- 
ets. The  revolution  of  the  planets  around  the  sun  is 
thus  seen  to  be  necessitated  by  the  motion  of  rotation 
which  they  had  formerly  shared  with  the  central  mass. 
It  can  be  shown  that  a  planet  thus  formed  would  ro- 
tate on  its  axis  as  well  as  revolve  around  the  sun,  and 
that  under  some  conditions  the  rotation  would  be  in 
the  same  direction  as  the  revolution,  and  under  other 
not  improbable  conditions  the  rotation  would  be  in  the 
direction  opposite  to  the  revolution.  The  exceptional 
movements  of  Neptune  and  Uranus  are  thus  readily 
accounted  for.  As  a  planet  rotated  and  contracted,  it 
would  in  turn  leave  behind  peripheral  portions,  which 
would  form  satellites,  precisely  as  the  primary  planets 
were  formed  by  the  leaving  behind  of  peripheral  por- 
tions of  the  sun.  In  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  both 
of  primary  planets  and  of  satellites,  the  whole  amount 
of  the  material  left  behind  at  each  epoch  of  planetary 
formation  aggregated  itself  into  a  single  spheroid.  In 
the  evolution  of  the  primary  planets  we  have  the  one 
exceptional  case  of  the  asteroids,  in  which  the  material 
left  behind  aggregated  itself  not  into  a  single  spheroid, 
but  into  a  large  number  of  spheroids,  forming  many 

146 


Modifications  of  the  Theory 

small  planets  instead  of  one  large  one.  In  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  satellites  from  the  planets,  we  have  the  one 
wonderful  case  of  Saturn's  rings,  in  which  the  mate- 
rial abandoned  at  the  periphery  of  the  rotating  mass 
was  so  exquisitely  balanced  as  to  maintain  itself  per- 
manently in  the  condition  of  a  ring.  It  is  of  course 
involved  in  the  form  of  the  nebular  theory  held  by 
Laplace  that  the  planets  were  formed  in  the  order  of 
their  distance  from  the  sun,  commencing  with  the  most 
distant.  Neptune  was  the  first-born  of  the  children 
of  the  sun,  and  Mercury  the  youngest  of  its  children. 
In  the  preceding  paragraph,  the  nebular  theory  has 
been  stated  substantially  in  the  form  in  which  it  was 
proposed  by  Laplace.  There  is  reason,  however,  to 
believe  that  some  modifications  will  render  the  theory 
more  accordant  with-  the  facts  and  probabilities  of  as- 
tronomical science  to-day.  In  the  first  place,  Laplace's 
supposition  that  the  m.aterial  left  behind  from  time  to 
time  at  the  periphery  of  the  contracting  nebula  would 
always  or  generally  be  a  complete  ring,  assumed  too 
great  a  degree  of  symmetry  and  homogeneity  in  the 
nebula.  It  seems  more  probable  that,  at  least  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  there  would  be  a  decided  excess  of 
matter  on  one  side  of  the  axis  of  rotation,  forming  a 
more  or  less  decided  protuberance  or  hump,  and  that 
the  material  left  behind  when  the  centrifugal  force 
overbalanced  the  force  of  gravitation  would  be  derived, 
not  from  the  whole  periphery  of  the  nebula,  but  from 
that  protuberance.  In  such  cases,  of  course,  the  aggre- 
gation of  the  mass  thus  separated  into  a  single  spheroid 

147 


or  r -te 

UNIVERSITY 


The  Nebular  Theory 

would  be  more  quickly  accomplished  than  in  the  proc- 
ess assumed  by  Laplace. 

In  the  second  place,  Laplace's  supposition  that  the 
initial  temperature  of  the  nebula  was  extremely  high,  is 
certainly  unnecessary,  and  probably  not  true.  What- 
ever the  initial  temperature  may  have  been,  the  effect 
of  condensation  would  be  the  production  of  heat.  So 
long  as  the  condensation  was  rapid,  the  gain  of  heat, 
as  the  result  of  condensation,  would  exceed  the  loss  of 
heat  by  radiation  into  space.  The  temperature,  there- 
fore, would  rise,  in  the  mass  as  a  whole,  or  in  any  iso- 
lated portion  of  that  mass,  so  long  as  it  was  undergoing 
rapid  condensation.  When,  in  any  particular  portion, 
the  condensation  had  reached  such  a  stage  that  further 
condensation  became  very  slow,  the  loss  of  heat  by 
radiation  would  overbalance  the  slow  gain  by  further 
condensation,  and  the  temperature  would  fall.  The 
thermal  conditions  of  different  parts  of  the  solar  sys- 
tem are  so  exactly  in  accord  with  this  phase  of  the  the- 
ory as  to  furnish  a  strong  confirmation  of  the  truth  of 
the  theory.  The  earth  and  probably  all  the  planets 
have  reached  such  a  stage  of  condensation  that  their 
rate  of  contraction  at  present  is  very  slow.  They  are, 
therefore,  probably  cooling  globes;  and,  so  far  as  we 
can  get  evidence  as  to  their  respective  temperatures, 
the  largest  bodies  have  the  highest  temperatures.  The 
extremely  dense  atmosphere  of  Jupiter,  the  largest  of 
the  planets,  with  its  vast  ocean  of  cloud,  apparently 
hiding  completely  the  surface  of  the  planet,  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  very  high  temperature  of  that  planet.    Jupi- 

148 


Thermal  Condition  of  Planetary  System 

ter,  in  fact,  appears  to  be  in  the  condition  in  which  the 
earth  was  once,  when  all  the  ocean  existed  in  the  at- 
mosphere, chiefly  in  the  form  of  vapor,  but  in  part 
condensing  into  cloud.  While  in  Jupiter,  the  largest 
of  the  planets,  we  thus  find  indication  of  a  temperature 
much  higher  than  that  of  the  earth,  telescopic  observa- 
tions of  the  moon  indicate  that  it  has  cooled  to  a  much 
lower  temperature  than  that  of  the  earth.  In  that  proc- 
ess of  cooling  it  has  almost  or  entirely  lost  its  original 
supply  of  atmospheric  gases  and  of  water.  The  atmos- 
phere and  water  which  it  probably  once  possessed,  may 
have  been  withdrawn  into  the  pores  of  its  solid  mass, 
or  have  entered  into  stable  forms  of  chemical  combina- 
tion. Some  of  the  water  perhaps  exists  at  the  surface  in 
the  form  of  ice.  While  it  is  probably  true  of  all  the 
planets  that  they  have  long  since  passed  their  maximum 
of  temperature  and  are  now  cooling,  it  is  uncertain 
whether  the  temperature  of  the  sun  at  present  is  rising 
or  falling.  The  density  of  the  sun  is  small,  and  there 
is  reason  to  believe  that  a  large  part  of  its  material  is 
gaseous.  It  is,  however,  a  gas  in  a  state  of  extreme 
condensation,  and  is  at  present  contracting  very  slowly. 
Our  knowledge  is  insufficient  positively  to  decide 
whether  its  gain  of  heat  by  the  slow  contraction  going 
on  is  greater  or  less  than  its  loss  of  heat  by  radiation. 
There  is  a  tendency  also  to  the  opinion  that,  in  its 
initial  condition,  the  nebula  was  not  a  uniform  gas,  but 
rather  a  swarm  of  meteors.  The  motions  of  these 
bodies  in  space  would  result  in  frequent  collisions,  and 
the  effect  of  the  collision  of  meteors  would  be  to 

149 


The  Nebular  Theory 

produce  so  great  an  amount  of  heat  as  to  convert  a 
greater  or  less  part  of  their  substance  into  gas.  The 
effect  of  the  condensation  of  the  nebula  in  producing 
a  gradual  elevation  of  temperature  would  be  the  same, 
whether  we  suppose  the  material  to  have  been  a  gas  or 
a  meteoric  swarm.  In  the  former  case,  with  increasing 
condensation  the  collisions  of  molecules  would"  be  more 
frequent;  in  the  latter  case,  with  increasing  conden- 
sation the  collision  of  the  meteors  would  be  more  fre- 
quent. Whether  the  collisions  were  of  molecules  or  of 
masses  of  sensible  magnitude,  makes  no  difference  in 
the  general  result.  In  either  case,  the  greater  fre- 
quency of  collisions  would  produce  a  continuous  eleva- 
tion of  temperature. 

It  is  uncertain,  too,  whether  the  planets  were  evolved 
in  the  order  of  their  relative  distances  from  the  sun, 
as  supposed  by  Laplace.  It  is  believed  by  many  as- 
tronomers to  be  possible  that  condensation  may  have 
taken  place  at  various  points  within  the  mass  of  the 
nebula,  so  that  planetary  evolution  may  have  been  go- 
ing on  simultaneously  at  various  distances  from  the 
center.  There  is,  moreover,  considerable  reason  to 
believe  that  the  genesis  of  the  moon  was  an  exceptional 
case,  differing  considerably  in  its  method  from  that  of 
other  secondary  planets  and  that  of  the  primary 
planets.* 

The  evidence  upon  which  Laplace  relied  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  nebular  theory  was  found,  as  we  have  seen, 

*  G.  H.  Darwin,  The  Tides ^  and  Kindred  Phenomena  in  the  Solar  System^ 
pp.  282,  339. 

ISO 


Nebula 

in  the  coincidences  of  the  planetary  movements.  In 
1811,  Sir  WilHam  Herschel  called  attention  to  the  evi- 
dence furnished  in  support  of  some  form  of  nebular 
theory  by  the  presence  of  nebulae  and  nebulous  stars. 
Many  nebulae  are  readily  seen  with  low  powers  of  the 
telescope,  appearing  as  faint  cloudlets  of  diffused  light. 
In  some  cases  a  bright  point  of  light  is  seen  somewhere 
near  the  center  of  the  nebula,  and  then  the  body  is 
called  a  nebulous  star.  It  was  urged  by  Herschel  that 
these  phenomena  indicate  that  in  various  parts  of  the 
universe  at  the  present  time  there  are  masses  of  matter 
in  some  such  condition  as  that  in  which  the  solar  sys- 
tem is  believed  to  have  been  at  a  remote  period  in  the 
past.  The  views  of  Sir  William  Herschel  seem  not  to 
have  attracted  very  much  attention  at  the  time  they 
were  first  published,  and  some  decades  later  they  ap- 
peared to  be  considerably  discredited  by  new  discov- 
eries. In  1842,  Lord  Rosse  constructed  a  colossal  re- 
flecting telescope  of  higher  magnifying  power  than  any 
telescope  which  had  been  previously  used.  The  exami- 
nation of  many  nebulae  with  that  great  instrument 
showed  that  they  were  simply  clusters  of  stars,  whose 
immense  distance  or  relatively  small  size  rendered  it 
impossible  to  recognize  the  individual  stars  with  lower 
magnifying  powers.  It  was  a  very  natural  conclusion, 
but  a  hasty  one,  and  one  which  we  now  know  to  be 
erroneous,  that  it  only  needed  a  larger  telescope  to  re- 
solve all  the  nebulae  into  stars.  We  now  feel  sure  that 
no  telescopic  power  could  resolve  all  nebulae  into  stars, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  some  of  them  are  not  stars. 


The  Nebular  Theory 

The  spectroscope  serves  to  distinguish  the  Hght  of  in- 
candescent gases  not  extremely  condensed,  from  the 
Hght  of  incandescent  solids  or  liquids,  or  from  that  of 
gases  in  an  extreme  state  of  condensation.  The  ordi- 
nary spectrum  of  gases  is  discontinuous,  consisting  of 
isolated  bright  lines,  whose  position  is  characteristic 
of  particular  substances;  while  incandescent  solids  or 
liquids,  or  gases  in  a  state  of  extreme  condensation, 
afford  a  continuous  spectrum  (which  may,  however, 
be  interrupted  by  dark  lines  if  the  light  passes  through 
an  absorptive  mecfium).  The  sun  and  the  stars  show 
by  their  continuous  spectra  that  their  light  proceeds 
from  incandescent  solids  or  liquids  or  from  gases  ex- 
tremely condensed.  In  the  case  of  the  sun,  it  is  be- 
lieved that  its  light  comes  from  a  stratum  of  luminous 
cloud  in  its  atmosphere.  The  spectrum  of  some  of  the 
nebul?e  shows  the  bright  lines  which  are  characteristic 
of  a  diffused  gas.  The  spectroscope  has  therefore  rein- 
stated in  more  than  its  original  force  the  argument  of 
Herschel.  We  may  with  confidence  regard  the  nebul?e 
which  show  the  characteristic  gaseous  spectrum  as 
bodies  of  matter  in  some  such  condition  as  that  as- 
sumed by  the  nebular  theory  to  have  been  the  initial 
condition  of  the  solar  system.* 

*  The  nebular  theory  has  been  recently  subjected  to  a  searching:  criticism  by 
T.  C.  Chamberlin,  in  The  Journal  of  Geology,  vol.  v,  p.  653,  vol.  viii,  j).  58, 
and  vol.  ix,  p.  369;  and  by  F.  R.  Moulton,  in  The  Astrophysical  Journal, 
vol.  xi,  p.  103.  It  seems  not  improbable  that  arguments  apparently  so  cogent 
as  are  presented  in  these  able  articles  will  lead  to  a  somewhat  radical  modifica- 
tion of  the  prevailing  views  in  regard  to  the  genesis  of  the  planetary  system 
While  these  writers  believe  the  theory  of  Laplace  to  be  untenable,  they  still 
hold  to  the  probable  origin  of  the  planetary  system  from  a  nebula.  There  is 
little  doubt  that  a  nebular  theory  will  prove  true  even  if  the  nebular  theory  of 
Laplace  is  abandoned, 

152 


Evolution  in  Geology 


EVOLUTION    IN    GEOLOGY* 


We  must  next  consider  the  development  of  the  idea 
of  evolution  in  geology.  We  have  seen  that  the  geol- 
ogists at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  ^— - 
all  catastrophists.f  Hutton,  who  did  more  than  any 
other  man  of  his  time  to  establish  geological  theorizing 
upon  a  sound  foundation,  understood  well  how  conti- 
nents are  progressively  degraded  by  the  action  of  the 
atmosphere  and  water;  but  he  knew  of  no  intelligible 
process  for  the  elevation  of  continents,  and  was  there- 
fore obliged  to  postulate  the  occasional  occurrence  of 
inexplicable  catastrophes,  in  which  continents  were 
suddenly  and  violently  elevated,  to  undergo  gradual 
degradation  thereafter  by  atmospheric  and  aqueous 
agencies.  In  like  manner,  the  paleontologists  of  the  - 
early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  all  believed  that  the 
history  of  life  upon  the  globe  had  been  a  history  of  U^ 
successive  creations.  Again  and  again  some  violent 
cataclysm  had  exterminated  all  the  life  of  the  globe; 
and  again  and  again  creative  power  had  originated,  by 
means  which  science  could  not  hope  to  formulate  or 
explain,  a  new  fauna  and  flora. 

To  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  more  than  to  any  other  otie  \ 
man,  belongs  the  credit  of  delivering  geological  science 
from  the  vagaries  of  catastrophism.  The  first  edition  of 
Lyell's  classical  and  epoch-making  work,  ''The  Prin-  \ 
ciples  of  Geology,"  was  published  in   1830.     A  new 
edition  of  that  book  was  issued  every  few  years,  almost 

*  See  references  in  note  on  page  41.  t  Page  51. 

153 


Evolution  in  Geology 

until  the  time  of  the  author's  death  in  1875,  ^^  that 
for  a  period  of  more  than  forty  years  the  successive 
editions  of  that  book  afford  a  history  of  the  progress 
of  geological  science.  In  the  seventh  edition  of  "The 
Principles  of  Geology,"  published  in  1847,  and  in  all 
later  editions,  one  chapter  bears  the  title,  ^'Uniformity 
in  the  Series  of  Past  Changes  in  the  Animate  and  In- 
animate World."  In  that  chapter  was  presented  in 
definite  form  the  argument,  of  which,  indeed,  the  whole 
book  was  an  expansion,  against  the  necessity  of  the 
supposed  catastrophes  of  the  older  geological  school. 
In  the  repudiation  of  catastrophism,  Lyell  rendered  the 
Huttonian  doctrine  consistent.  The  merit  of  Hutton 
was  in  his  fundamental  principle  that  the  past  changes 
of  the  globe  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
changes  now  going  on.  His  belief  in  catastrophism 
was  therefore  obviously  incongruous  with  the  general 
spirit  and  tenor  of  his  theorizing.  In  Lyell,  then,  for 
the  first  time,  we  find  a  consistent  development  of  the 
Huttonian  doctrine.  Lyell  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  earth's  crust  is  in  continual  oscillation  at  the 
present  time.  Some  coasts,  like  that  of  Scandinavia, 
are  slowly  rising;  others,  like  that  of  Greenland,  are 
sinking.  We  only  need  to  suppose  that  similar  changes 
have  been  going  on  through  indefinite  ages  of  the  past 
in  order  to  account  for  any  amount  of  change  in  level 
which  may  be  required.  There  is  no  need,  then,  of  as- 
suming the  occurrence  of  inexplicable  catastrophes  in 
order  to  account  for  the  elevation  of  continents.  A 
continuous  gradual  elevation  of  a  part  of  the  crust  of 

154 


Lyell 

the  globe  would  produce  a  continent  if  only  continued 
for  a  sufficient  time.  Lyell,  again,  gave  for  the  first 
time  the  true  interpretation  of  the  abrupt  changes  in 
flora  and  fauna  between  successive  geological  forma- 
tions. As  was  pointed  out  when  we  were  discussing 
the  catastrophism  of  the  early  geologists,*  the  most 
abrupt  changes  in  flora  and  fauna  usually  occur  where  . 
the  underlying  and  the  overlying  series  of  strata  are  I 
manifestly  unconformable  with  each  other.  Lyell 
showed  that  the  inference  to  be  drawn  in  such  cases 
was,  not  that  there  had  been  a  universal  extermination 
of  life,  followed  by  the  creation  of  a  new  fauna  and 
flora,  but  rather  that  there  was  an  unrecorded  interval 
of  time,  in  which  species  may  have  migrated  from  one 
district  to  another,  old  species  one  by  one  may  have 
become  extinct,  and  new  species  one  by  one  may 
have  been  introduced.  The  lack  of  geological  record 
of  such  an  interval  of  time  would  make  the  result  of  a 
change  which  had  really  been  gradual  appear  sudden 
and  catastrophic. 

But,  while  geology  owes  so  much  to  Lyell  and  to  the 
uniformitarian  school  of  which  he  was  the  founder, 
the  doctrines  of  that  school  are  by  no  means  held  in 
their  completeness  by  geologists  of  the  present  time. 
The  great  merit  of  Lyell  was  the  unshrinking  consist- 
ency with  which  he  insisted  that  no  forces  or  agencies 
must  be  postulated  in  geological  theorizing  which  can^ 
not  be  shown  to  be  in  action  at  the  present  time.  The 
past  must  be  interpreted  purely  in  the  light  of  the  pres- 

*  Page  52. 

155 


Evolution  in  Geology 

ent.  But  much  of  Lyell's  thinking  was  vitiated  by  a 
latent  assumption  that  uniformity  of  law  from  age  to 
age  involves  uniformity  in  phenomena.  Of  course 
Lyell  would  never  have  acknowledged  that  he  held  a 
doctrine  so  absurd.  When  distinctly  formulated,  the 
assertion  that  uniformity  of  law  means  uniformity  in 
phenomena  from  age  to  age,  is  almost  self-contradic- 
tory. It  is,  in  reality,  as  a  consequence  of  the  uniform- 
ity of  law  and  the  constancy  in  the  action  of  physical 
forces,  that  the  earth  has  come  to  its  present  condition 
from  a  past  condition  different  from  the  present,  and 
tends  to  a  future  condition  different  from  either  the 
present  or  the  past.  If,  for  instance,  the  earth  is  to- 
day a  relatively  hot  body  surrounded  by  cold  space,  the 
assumption  that  physical  forces  are  constant  and  that 
their  laws  are  uniform  compels  us  to  believe  that  the 
earth  was  once  hotter  than  it  is,  and  that  it  is  destined 
to  be  colder  than  it  is.  But  the  thinking  even  of  great 
men  is  often  perverted  by  some  false  conception,  whose 
falsity  might  be  perceived  if  it  were  distinctly  formu- 
lated, but  which  in  latent  and  unrecognized  condition 
serves  to  influence  their  conclusions.  Lyell's  dogma 
of  uniformitarlanism  made  him  unwilling  to  admit 
within  the  scope  of  geological  science  a  conception  of  a 
condition  of  the  earth  very  different  from  the  present. 
He  insisted,  as  Hutton  had  insisted  in  the  previous 
century,  that  geology  has  nothing  to  do  with  cosmog- 
ony. To  Lyell,  as  to  Hutton,  geological  phenomena 
gave  no  indication  either  of  beginning  or  ending  of  the 
earth.    Even  in  the  latest  edition  of  his  "Principles  of 

,     156 


Errors  of  Uniformitarianism 

Geology,"  the  title  '^Nebular  Theory"  does  not  appear 
in  the  index.  In  Lyell's  earlier  editions,  he  called  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  recent  paleontological  discov- 
eries are  continually  carrying  back  the  existence  of 
some  particular  group  of  animals  or  plants  to  an  earlier 
geological  period  than  that  in  which  they  had  been  pre- 
viously known  to  occur,  and  accordingly  insinuated  a 
doubt  whether  there  has  been  any  real  progress  in  the 
development  of  life  since  Cambrian  time.  Since  most 
geological  processes  are  obviously  very  slow,  Lyell  as- 
sumed that  all  geological  processes  must  be  slow,  and 
accordingly  conceived  of  geological  time  as  almost  an 
eternity.  In  the  continuous  oscillation  of  the  earth's 
crust,  Lyell  assumed  that  elevations  and  subsidences 
of  various  areas  followed  each  other  with  kaleidoscopic 
indefiniteness,  so  that  continent  and  ocean  may  have 
repeatedly  exchanged  places  in  the  course  of  geolog- 
ical time.  This  phase  of  the  Lyellian  doctrine  finds 
beautiful  expression  in  the  lines  of  Tennyson, — 

"There  rolls  the  deep  where  grew  the  tree, 
O  earth !  what  changes  hast  thou  seen ! 
There,  where  the  long  street  roars,  hath  been 

The   stillness  of  the  central   sea." 

Huxley  has  shown  that  the  evolutionary  school  of 
geology,  which  is  dominant  to-day,  is  the  heir  both  of 
catastrophism  and  of  uniformitarianism.*  The  one 
of  those  extreme  views  is  about  as  dead  as  the  other. 
From  the  uniformitarianism  of  Lyell,  modern  geology 
inherits  a  consistent  and  unflinching  faith  in  the  doc- 

*  Geological  Reform^  in  Discourses  Geological  aiid  Biological^  p.  305. 


V 


Evolution  in  Geology 

trine  that  laws  and  forces  which  are  illustrated  in  the 
changes  now  in  progress,  and  those  alone,  must  be  ap- 
pealed to  for  the  explanation  of  the  changes  which 
wxnt  on  in  the  past.  But  modern  geology  fully  ac- 
cepts the  truth  that  uniformity  of  law  not  only  does  not 
contradict,  but  does  absolutely  require,  the  recognition 
of  vast  changes  in  phenomena.  Modern  geology  does 
not  hesitate  to  recognize  the  earth  as  a  cooling  globe, 
and  to  find  in  its  contraction,  with  progressive  cooling, 
the  explanation  of  crustal  movements  and  of  the  origin 
of  the  earth's  physical  features.  Modern  geology  does 
not  hesitate  to  say  that,  the  earth  as  a  habitable  globe 
must  run  its  course  in  a  distinctly  finite  period  of 
i  time — a  period,  indeed,  measured  by  tens  or  at  most 
Mjy  hundreds  of  millions  of  years.  The  evidences  of 
beginning  and  ending  of  the  present  phase  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  earth  are  unmistakable.  Modern  geology 
does  not  hesitate  to  link  itself  with  astronomy  through 
the  nebular  theory,  and  to  find  in  the  conception  of 
Laplace,  or  some  modification  of  that  conception,  the 
explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  earth.  Modern  geol- 
•  ogy  recognizes  that,  although  the  majority  of  geolog- 
\  ical  changes  are  slow,  some  geological  changes  are 
rapid.  Intermittent  efifects  may  follow  the  action  of 
a  continuous  force.  The  rigidity  of  rock  masses  may 
resist  for  a  long  time  an  accumulating  pressure,  and 
the  yielding  may  take  place  at  last  with  comparative 
rapidity.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  the  physical  his- 
tory of  the  globe  has  been  an  alternation  of  periods  of 
comparative  crustal  stability,  with  periods  of  compara- 

158 


Evolution  in  BiologV 

tively  rapid  crustal  movement  in  which  great  mountain 
ranges  have  been  elevated.  Some  geological  move- 
ments, indeed,  may  have  been  relatively  so  rapid  as,  in 
a  qualified  sense,  to  deserve  the  name  of  catastrophes. 
Modern  geology  holds,  as  Dana  taught  more  than  half 
a  century  ago,  that  the  fundamental  differentiation  of 
the  earth's  surface — the  distinction  of  continent  and 
ocean — dates  from  a  very  early  stage  in  the  process  of 
the  earth's  refrigeration.  Although  the  continents  have 
been  in  the  past  largely  covered  by  shallow  seas,  it 
does  not  appear  that  they  have  ever  formed  the  bed 
of  deep  oceans,  or  that  there  has  been  anything  like  a 
general  exchange  of  position  between  continent  and 
ocean.  And  surely  no  geologist  of  the  present  day 
would  have  a  shadow  of  doubt  that  life  commenced 
in  pre-Cambrian  time  with  comparatively  low  and 
simple  forms,  and  that  the  progress  through  the 
ages  has  been  marked  by  the  successive  appearance 
of  higher,  and  higher  types,  and  by  an  expansion 
of  animal  and  vegetable  life  to  a  continually  increas- 
ing richness  of  diversification. 

evolution  in  biology 

The  Origin  of  Species'^ 

We  come  now  to  the  discussion  of  the  most  impor- 
tant subject  of  scientific  investigation  in  the  half-cen- 
tury just  closed — evolution  in  biology,  or,  more  par- 
ticularly, the  question  of  the  evolutionary  origin  of  the 

*  An  admirable  historical  sketch  of  evolutionary  thought  prior  to  Darwin 
may  be  found  in  Osborn,  From  the  Greeks  to  Darwin.     Darwin,  Origin  of 


Evolution  in  Biology 

species  of  plants  and  animals.  The  beginning  of  the 
modern  phase  of  the  question  of  evolution  in  biology 
was  in  the  year  1858.  But,  before  referring  to  the 
papers  whose  promulgation  in  that  year  inaugurated 
the  new  era  in  biological  science,  it  is  well  for  us  to 
notice  the  preparation  which  had  been  made  previously 
to  that  time  for  the  development  of  a  theory  of  evolu- 
tion in  biology.  Before  the  year  1858,  evolutionary 
theories  in  astronomy  and  geology  had  come  to  be  gen- 
erally accepted.  It  was  the  almost  unanimous  belief 
of  astronomers  that  some  form  of  the  nebular  theory 
must  be  accepted  as  the  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
the  planets.  The  catastrophism  of  the  early  geologists 
had  received  its  death-blow  from  the  arguments  of 
Lyell.  It  had  come  to  be  recognized  by  every  one  that 
the  whole  history  of  the  inorganic  arrangements  of 
the  earth,  from  the  initial  condition  of  the  nebula  to 
the  present  time — the  origination  of  the  globe  itself, 
and  the  development  of  oceans,  continents,  mountains, 
and  all  other  physical  features, — was  the  result  of  a 
perfectly  continuous  evolutionary  process.  The  fact 
that  evolution  had  ruled  with  consistent  sway  in  all  the 

species^  is  still  the  classical  work  on  the  f3:eneral  subject  of  evolution  of  species 
and  on  the  theory  of  natural  sel»-ction.  It  is  supplemented,  not  superseded, 
by  later  writings.  A  few  of  the  other  most  important  works  on  evolution  in 
jjeupral  and  on  natural  selection  are:  Wallace.  Contributions  to  the  Theory  of 
Natural  Selection;  W^allace,  Darwinism  ;  Huxley,  Darwinian  a  {Collected 
Essays,  vol.  ii)  ;  Gray,  Darroiniana  ;  Romanes,  Darivin  and  After  Darwin, 
vol.  i,  The  Darwinian  Theory ;  Conn,  Evolutio7t  of  To-day ;  Le  Cont^,  Evo- 
lution and  its  Relation  to  Religious  Thought ;  Drummond,  Ascent  of  Man  ; 
Marshall,  Lectures  on  the  Darivinian  Theory.  Other  works  bearing  on  special 
phases  of  the  '*octrine  of  evolution  will  be  cited  later.  The  views  expressed  in 
the  present  work  are  for  the  most  part  the  same  as  were  briefly  outlined  in  the 
article  on  Evolution  in  Sanford's  Concise  Cyclopedia  of  Religious ^nowled^e 
(republished  with  some  modification  in  my  Twenty-Eive  Years^f  Scientific 
Progress.,  atid  Other  Essays). 

160 


Preparation  for  Darwin 

inorganic  arrangements  of  the  earth,  could  not  fail  to 
suggest  doubts  of  the  prevalent  belief  that  the  history 
of  organic  nature  was  a  history  of  a  discontinuous  suc- 
cession of  special  creations. 

We  must  notice,  too,  that  in  a  special  sense  the  views 
which  Lyell  had  rendered  popular  in  historical  geology 
prepared  the  way  for  organic  evolution.  Cataclysmic 
periods  of  universal  extermination  of  life,  which  fig- 
ured in  the  theories  of  the  older  geologists,  had  been, 
universally  abandoned.  Everywhere  it  had  come  to  be  \ 
recognized  that  species  appeared  and  disappeared,  one 
at  a  time  or  a  few  at  a  time,  not  by  the  simultaneous 
destruction  and  creation  of  entire  floras  and  faunas. 
Before  the  year  1858,  even  the  most  conservative  geol- 
ogists were  ready  to  concede  that  there  is  no  satisfac- 
tory evidence  of  an  epoch  of  universal  destruction  of 
life  and  simultaneous  creation  of  a  new  fauna  and 
flora  at  any  stage  of  the  earth's  history.  The  universal 
acceptance  of  a  belief  that  the  progress  of  life,  from 
the  Cambrian  era  to  the  present,  had  thus  been  a  grad- 
ual progress,  and  not  a  progress  marked  by  a  series  of 
catastrophic  exterminations  and  new  creations,  natu- 
rally suggested  the  idea  that  the  progress  of  life  was 
a  strictly  continuous  process — an  evolution. 

In  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  then,  the 
world  was  ready  for  a  more  favorable  consideration  of 
the  hypothesis  of  biological  evolution  than  that  hy- 
pothesis had  ever  received  before.  Of  course  the  ques- 
tion had  been  raised  again  and  again  in  the  past. 
Everyone  who  knows  anything  of  animal  and  vege- 

161 


The  Origin  of  Species 

table  life  knows  that  the  life  of  every  individual  is 
most  typically  an  example  of  continuous  evolution. 
Every  individual  has  its  origin  in  a  condition  of  unicel- 
lular simplicity,  and  gradually  attains  to  the  complex- 
ity of  structure  and  variety  of  function  which  charac- 
terizes the  adult.  The  question  must  always  have  been 
ready  to  suggest  itself  to  the  philosophic  mind,  whether 
the  origin  of  the  earliest  individuals  of  a  species  was 
not,  like  the  origin  of  all  their  successors,  due  to  a 
process  of  evolution.  In  vague  and  crude  forms  the 
idea  of  evolution  of  one  type  of  life  from  another  and 
lower  type  was  taught  by  many  of  the  Greek  philoso- 
phers ;  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
(1801)  the  French  naturalist,  Lamarck,  presented  the 
idea  of  evolution  of  new  species  in  a  form  which  may 
fairly  be  considered  a  scientific  theory. 

Lamarck's  views,  however,  made  little  impression 
upon  the  thought  of  his  time.  The  reason  was  three- 
fold. First,  he  was  unable  to  give  any  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  the  method  of  evolution.  He  recognized 
some  of  those  relations  between  different  species  of 
animals  and  plants  which  we  have  now  learned  to  in- 
terpret as  evidences  of  the  origin  of  species  by  descent 
with  modification.  But  his  explanation  of  the  method 
of  evolution  was  certainly  inadequate ;  and,  as  we  shall 
see  hereafter,*  it  is  not  certain  that  it  has  any  degree  of 
validity.  Secondly,  the  time  was  not  ripe  for  a  theory 
of  evolution.  The  general  state  of  the  world's  thought 
in  1 80 1  was  very  different  from  what  it  was  in  1858. 

*  Page  214. 
162 


Lamarck 

In  the  interval  between  those  two  dates,  the  acceptance 
of  evolution  in  astronomy  and  geology  had  prepared 
the  way  for  the  acceptance  of  an  analogous  belief  in 
biology.  The  complete  abandonment  of  the  notion  of 
universal  exterminations  followed  by  new  creations 
had  removed  one  of  the  most  serious  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  biological  evolution.  Thirdly,  Lamarck  was 
unfortunate  in  that  he  found  an  opponent  greatly  his 
superior  in  knowledge  and  ability.  Georges  Cuvier,  the 
great  anatomist  and  paleontologist,  appeared  as  the 
champion  of  the  special  creation  of  every  species,  and 
won  an  easy  victory  over  the  crude  and  premature 
hypothesis  of  Lamarck.  Though  on  the  question  of 
evolution  we  now  count  Lamarck  right  and  Cuvier 
wrong,  Cuvier  is  nevertheless  recognized  as  worthy  of 
far  higher  honor  than  Lamarck  for  his  aggregate  of 
service  to  scientific  truth.  The  instances  are  not  few 
in  the  history  of  science  in  which,  as  in  this  case,  the 
influence  of  a  name  deservedly  honored  has  served  to 
maintain  for  a  time  an  erroneous  belief.  We  have 
already  had  occasion  to  note  the  influence  of  Newton 
in  delaying  the  acceptance  of  the  views  of  Huyghens 
in  regard  to  the  nature  of  light.* 

The  beginning  of  the  modern  phase  of  the  history  of 
biological  evolution  was  in  1858,  when  Alfred  Russell 
Wallace,  who  had  been  spending  four  years  in  the 
Malay  Archipelago  in  the  study  of  the  zoology,  botany, 
and  geology  of  that  region,  sent  to  his  friend,  Charles 
Darwin,  an  essay  "On  the  Tendency  of  Varieties  to 

*  Page  129. 
163 


The  Origin  of  Species 


1 


depart  indefinitely  from  the  Original  Type."*  It  was 
with  strangely  mingled  feelings  that  Darwin  read 
his  friend's  essay.  He  had  been  at  work  himself  for 
twenty  years  on  a  theory  of  evolution.  Fourteen  years 
before,  he  had  written  a  preliminary  statement  of  his 
views,  and  shown  it  to  one  of  his  scientific  friends. f 
He  had  waited  those  many  years  to  gather  additional 
facts,  to  answer  the  objections  that  had  arisen  in  the 
progress  of  his  thinking,  to  work  out  many  points  more 
in  detail,  and  in  general  to  prepare  himself  eventually 
to  publish  his  views  in  more  complete  form  and  with 
more  conclusive  evidence.  It  was,  indeed,  startling  to 
find  the  central  idea  of  his  own  work  formulated  in 
Wallace's  paper.  With  a  generosity  of  which  few  men 
would  have  been  capable,  he  was  disposed  at  first  to 
publish  his  friend's  essay,  and  still  withhold  his  own 
work  from  publication.  But  two  of  his  friends,  Lyell, 
the  geologist,  and  Hooker,  the  botanist,  felt  that  such 
self-abnegation  would  be  unreasonable;  and  it  was 
finally  arranged  that  at  the  same  meeting  of  the  Lin- 
nean  Society  should  be  read  Wallace's  essay,  and  a 
paper  by  Darwin  consisting  of  extracts  from  the  sketch 
written  in  1844  and  a  part  of  a  letter  to  Asa  Gray  writ- 
en  in  1857.  The  two  papers  presented  at  the  Linnean 
Society  that  memorable  evening  are  the  Wittenberg 
Theses  of  the  intellectual  reformation  of  our  time.  In 
the  following  year  was  published  Darwin's  epoch- 
making  book  on  *'The  Origin  of  Species  by  means  of 

*  Included  in  Contributions  to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection. 
t  Sir  Joseph  Dalton  Hooker. 

164 


Wallace  and  Darwin 

Natural  Selection,  or  the  Preservation  of  Favored 
Races  in  the  Struggle  for  Life."  With  the  publication 
of  that  book,  the  discussion  emerged  from  the  associa- 
tions of  technical  students  of  science  into  the  larger 
arena  of  the  world's  thought. 

It  is  impossible  to  praise  too  highly  the  conduct  of 
these  two  illustrious  men  in  their  relation  to  each  other. 
It  afforded  a  beautiful  contrast  to  the  petty  squabbles 
about  priority  which  have  so  often  disgraced  the  lives 
even  of  eminent  scientific  men.  It  was  a  fine  example 
of  the  fulfillment  of  St.  Paul's  precept,  "in  honor  pre- 
ferring one  another."  Wallace's  treatment  of  Darwin 
was  a  worthy  reciprocation  of  Darwin's  own  gener- 
osity. At  the  meeting  of  the  British  Association  in 
1867,  he  publicly  declared  that  he  was  proud  to  be  a 
Darwinian ;  and,  in  the  preface  to  his  "Contributions 
to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection,"  he  said,  "I  have 
felt  the  most  sincere  satisfaction  that  Mr.  Darwin  had 
been  at  work  long  before  me,  and  that  it  was  not  left 
for  me  to  attempt  to  write  'The  Origin  of  Species.'  " 

Before  considering  the  theory  of  natural  selection, 
we  must  notice  two  comprehensive  laws  in  the  realm  of 
life  with  which  the  theory  stands  in  intimate  relation. 
Those  two  laws  are  heredity  and  variation.  We  may 
state  those  principles  in  a  simple,  though  somewhat 
paradoxical,  form  in  two  propositions: — (i)  The  off- 
spring is  always  like  its  parent.  (2)  The  offspring  is 
never  like  its  parent. 

The  offspring  is  always  like  its  parent.  It  inherits 
from  its  parents  those  qualities  which  mark  it  as  an  in- 

165 


The  Origin  of  Species 

dividual  of  a  particular  species.  The  offspring  of  a 
cat  is  never  anything  but  a  kitten.  The  plant  that 
grows  from  an  acorn  is  never  anything  but  an  oak. 
But,  as  every  one  knows,  the  offspring  inherits  from  its 
parents  far  more  than  those  characteristics  which  mark 
it  as  an  individual  of  a  particular  species.  We  know 
well,  in  the  case  of  ourselves,  that  we  have  inherited 
from  our  parents  far  more  than  those  characters  which 
belong  to  us  all  as  human  beings.  We  have  inherited 
from  our  parents  peculiarities  of  size,  form,  com- 
plexion, color  of  hair,  susceptibility,  it  may  be,  to 
particular  diseases,  peculiar  mental  and  moral  traits. 
Analogous  facts  we  observe  continually  among  our  ac- 
quaintances. The  same  thing  is  noticed  by  all  who  at- 
tentively study  domestic  animals  of  any  species.  If  the 
facts  are  less  familiar  to  us  in  regard  to  wild  animals 
and  in  regard  to  plants  in  general,  it  is  chiefly  because 
we  do  not  give  so  much  attention  to  individual  peculi- 
arities in  the  case  of  wild  animals  and  plants  as  in  the 
case  of  human  beings  and  domestic  animals,  though  it  is 
doubtless  true  that  in  general  the  amount  of  variability 
is  greater  in  domestic  animals  than  in  wild  species. 

It  is  equally  certain  that  the  offspring  is  never  ex- 
actly like  the  parent.  No  human  being  shows  an  exact 
repetition  of  the  characteristics  of  father  or  mother. 
No  two  children  in  the  same  family,  no  two  kittens  in 
the  same  litter,  are  exactly  alike.  No  two  seeds  in  the 
same  pod  are  exactly  alike,  nor  will  they  develop  into 
plants  exactly  alike.  Every  individual  exhibits  more 
or  less  of  individual  peculiarity. 

i66 


Heredity  and  Variation 

We  may  say,  then,  that  the  orbit  of  every  species  of 
animal  or  plant  is  determined  by  the  centripetal  and 
centrifugal  forces  of  heredity  and  variation.  Whether 
we  can  or  cannot  give  an  explanation  of  these  laws,  we 
must  recognize  their  existence  throughout  the  realm  of 
life,  and  a  theory  of  evolution  must  be  based  upon 
them. 

If  one  species  is  transmuted  into  another  species,  it 
must  obviously  be  by  one  of  two  processes  or  by  some 
combination  of  the  two.  Either  there  must  be  from 
time  to  time  very  great  variations,  so  that  in  these  ex- 
ceptional cases  the  offspring  is  so  different  from  the 
parents  as  to  be  marked  at  once  as  the  beginning  of  a 
new  and  distinct  race;  or,  secondly,  there  must  be 
from  generation  to  generation  a  progressive  accumula- 
tion of  small  variations  tending  in  one  direction;  or, 
thirdly,  there  must  be  the  occurrence  of  both  these  con- 
ditions. But  here  we  meet  with  what  has  always  been 
felt  as  the  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  evolution  of 
species.  Within  the  limited  time  in  which  accurate  ob- 
servations of  living  beings  have  been  made,  the  general 
result  of  our  observation  is  that  variation  is  small  in 
amount,  and,  instead  of  being  cumulative  from  gen- 
eration to  generation,  it  simply  oscillates  around  an 
average  type.  A  simple  illustration  will  make  clear 
the  state  of  the  case.  In  the  human  species  variations 
in  stature  are  continually  occurring.  Yet,  with  the 
exception  of  cases  more  or  less  decidedly  pathological, 
those  variations  in  stature  are  confined  within  narrow 
limits ;  and  there  seems  no  tendency  for  the  variation  to 

167 


The  Origin  of  Species 

be  cumulative  in  successive  generations.  We  do  not 
observe  that  the  children  of  small  men  are  smaller  than 
their  parents,  and  their  grandchildren  smaller  still,  so 
as  to  show  a  tendency  to  the  development  of  a  pygmy 
race;  nor  do  we  find  a  tendency  to  cumulative  varia- 
tion in  the  other  direction,  so  as  to  develop  a  race  of 
giants.  The  same  thing  might  be  illustrated  by  any 
other  variable  characteristic  in  the  human  species,  or 
in  any  other  species  with  which  we  are  well  acquainted. 
A  certain  average  character  of  the  species  maintains 
itself  substantially  invariable  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. Some  individuals  are  larger  and  some  are 
smaller;  some  individuals  lighter  colored  and  others 
darker.  But  the  variations  in  these  and  in  other  char- 
acters simply  oscillate  around  the  average  type.  It  is 
obvious  that,  so  long  as  this  state  of  things  continues, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  the  evolution  of  a  new 
species. 

But  it  would  be  a  tremendous  logical  saltus,  from  the 
fact  that,  within  the  narrow  limits  of  our  observation, 
variation  appears  to  be  small  in  amount  and  merely 
oscillatory,  to  leap  to  the  conclusion  that  the  same  has 
been  true  throughout  the  world  and  throughout  the 
lapse  of  geological  time.  Accurate  observation  upon 
the  characters  of  any  organic  species  has  been  extended 
over  only  a  few  centuries  at  the  utmost,  and  the  period 
covered  by  that  observation  is  a  period  in  which  the 
physical  environment  has  been  comparatively  stable. 
No  great  geographic  or  climatic  changes  have  been  in 
progress  upon  the  surface  of  the  globe  during  the  time 

i68 


Natural  Selection 

in  which  zoologists  and  botanists  have  been  at  work. 
It  must  be  recognized  as  possible,  and  not  very  im- 
probable a  priori,  that,  in  the  changing  environment  to 
which  animals  and  plants  have  been  exposed  in  the 
lapse  of  geological  time,  with  its  immense  vicissitudes 
of  climate  and  geography,  there  may  have  been  times 
when  variation  has  been  cumulative  in  particular  direc- 
tions, instead  of  being  merely  oscillatory.  The  theory 
of  evolution,  however,  would  not  have  a  very  satis- 
factory foundation  if  it  rested  only  on  such  an  a  priori 
possibility.  To  give  satisfactory  ground  for  a  belief 
in  evolution,  it  must  be  shown  that  there  is  some 
agency  at  work  in  nature  which  would  tend,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  to  make  variation  progressive.  It  is 
precisely  that  need  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  which 
is  supplied  by  the  theory  of  natural  selection,  as  pro- 
posed by  Darwin  and  Wallace. 

The  theory  of  natural  selection  is  founded  upon 
three  unquestionable  truths  in  regard  to  the  realm  of 
life.  Two  of  them  have  been  already  mentioned  as 
underlying  any  speculation  in  regard  to  evolution. 
These  are  the  laws  of  heredity  and  variation.  The 
third  general  law  of  organic  nature  on  which  the  the- 
ory of  natural  selection  rests,  is  the  tendency  of  every 
species  of  animal  or  plant  to  multiply  in  geometrical 
ratio.  Just  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century,  the 
essay  of  Malthus  on  the  "Principle  of  Population" 
called  the  attention  of  economists  and  sociologists  to 
the  tendency  to  geometrical  increase  in  the  human  spe- 
cies.    The  same  law  operates  in  the  case  of  every 

169 


The  Origin  of  Species 

species  of  animal  or  plant,  without  any  of  the  pruden- 
tial restraints  which  modify  its  action  in  the  case  of 
man.  Even  in  the  case  of  creatures  which  breed  most 
slowly  the  law  holds  good.  The  elephant,  for  example, 
produces  young  only  about  once  in  ten  years,  and  gen- 
erally only  one  at  a  birth.  Yet,  if  there  were  no  check 
upon  the  multiplication  of  that  species,  there  would 
be  in  a  few  generations  more  elephants  than  could  find 
standing-room  upon  the  earth,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
impossibility  of  their  finding  means  of  subsistence. 
Darwin  estimates  that  the  progeny  of  a  single  pair  of 
elephants,  after  the  lapse  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  would  number  about  nineteen  million.  And, 
when  we  come  to  consider  some  of  the  lower  forms  of 
animal  and  vegetable  life,  which  produce  eggs  or 
spores  by  the  million,  the  significance  of  the  law  of 
geometrical  increase  becomes  startllngly  impressive. 

The  actual  fulfillment  of  this  tendency  to  geometrical 
increase  is  prevented  by  the  fact  that  every  individual 
is  exposed  to  a  continual  succession  of  perils  from  the 
earliest  moment  of  its  existence  until  it  finally  suc- 
cumbs in  death.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  the 
germs  of  life  which  are  produced  never  get  beyond  the 
germinal  stage.  The  vast  majority  of  eggs  are  de- 
voured or  otherwise  destroyed  before  they  are  hatched, 
and  the  vast  majority  of  seeds  before  they  germinate. 
But,  if  the  egg  is  hatched  or  the  seed  germinates,  and 
the  independent  life  of  the  new  animal  or  plant  be- 
gins, the  individual  is  exposed  to  a  continuous  series 
of  perils  along  the  whole  course  of  its  existence.  These 

170 


The  Struggle  for  Life 

dangers  to  the  life  of  each  individual  come  in  part 
from  inorganic  conditions,  such  as  the  inclemency  of 
weather,  the  extremes  of  heat  and  cold,  of  drouth  and 
damp.  They  come  in  part  from  the  presence  of  rivals 
destined  to  live  upon  the  same  kind  of  food ;  and  mul- 
titudes are  starved  in  the  relentless  competition.  Mul- 
titudes, again,  of  plants  and  animals  are  devoured  by 
animals  for  which  they  constitute  the  appropriate  food. 
If  an  individual  survives  to  maturity,  it  does  so  in  vir- 
tue of  having  successfully  run  the  gauntlet  of  these 
perils,  and  having  overcome  in  what  Darwin  has 
vividly  and  almost  poetically  called,  "the  struggle  for 
life." 

But  now,  since  variation  is  universal,  and  no  two 
individuals  of  any  species  are  exactly  alike,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  some  individuals  in  every  generation  will 
be  better  adapted  than  others  to  conquer  in  the  struggle 
for  life.  They  may  be  protected  against  external  cold 
by  a  warmer  coat  of  fur  or  feathers;  they  may  be 
able  by  greater  strength  or  greater  cunning  to  secure 
food,  where  their  weaker  or  less  cunning  brethren 
starve;  they  may  be  able,  in  time  of  scarcity  of  the 
best  quality  of  food,  to  digest  an  inferior  quality  of 
food  and  thrive  upon  it,  while  other  individuals  of 
the  species  may  not  be  able  to  use  the  inferior  food 
without  great  impairment  of  vitality;  they  may  es- 
cape from  carnivorous  animals  by  greater  swiftness, 
or  be  able  to  repel  their  attacks  by  greater  strength 
and  courage.  If  in  any  way  whatever  some  of  the 
individuals  of  a  species  are  better  adapted  for  success 

171 


The  Origin  of  Species 

in  the  struggle  for  life,  those  individuals  will  be  likely 
to  survive  to  maturity,  and  may  therefore  have  the 
opportunity  to  propagate  their  species.  They  will  be 
naturally  selected  to  breed  the  coming  generation.  By 
the  law  of  heredity  it  will  naturally  follow  that  their 
offspring  will  inherit,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  those 
favorable  peculiarities  which  have  given  the  parents 
victory  in  the  struggle  for  life.  This,  then,  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  natural  selection. 

The  phrase,  "natural  selection,"  is,  of  course,  a  meta- 
phorical one.  It  was  suggested  to  Darwin  by  the  ex- 
perience of  cultivators  of  plants  and  breeders  of  ani- 
mals. No  breeder  of  intelligence  and  skill  will  allow 
all  his  animals  indiscriminately  to  propagate.  If  he 
only  desires,  in  general,  to  maintain  a  healthy  and 
vigorous  stock,  he  will  select  for  breeding  purposes 
those  of  his  animals  which  appear  to  be  in  the  best 
general  condition.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  desires 
to  develop  any  particular  quality,  he  will  select  for 
breeding  the  individuals  which  already  possess  that 
quality  in  highest  degree.  If,  for  instance,  the  cattle- 
breeder  desires  to  raise  a  race  of  cattle  characterized 
by  a  tendency  to  take  on  flesh  and  develop  great 
weight — a  quality  which  would  be  profitable  for  the 
production  of  beef — he  will  accomplish  that  result  by 
continually  selecting  his  heaviest  bulls  and  cows  for 
breeding.  If  he  wishes  to  improve  his  herd  with  refer- 
ence to  dairy  products,  he  will  select  for  breeding  those 
cows  which  yield  milk  in  largest  quantity,  or  milk  of 
richest  quality,  according  as  he  proposes  to  sell  milk 

172 


Artificial  and  Natural  Selection 

or  butter.  If  he  desires,  as  a  matter  of  fancy,  a  breed 
possessed  of  any  peculiarity  of  appearance,  as  extreme 
length  of  horns  or  extreme  shortness  of  horns,  he  will 
select  his  animals  for  breeding  in  reference  to  the  par- 
ticular qualities  which  he  wishes  to  develop.  The  same 
sort  of  selection  is  practiced  by  agriculturists  and  horti- 
culturists in  the  endeavor  to  produce  choice  varieties 
of  the  plants  cultivated  for  their  beauty  or  for  their 
economic  uses.  In  every  case  the  principle  upon  which 
successful  breeding  depends  is  the  careful  selection  of 
the  most  promising  individuals  from  which  to  breed. 
This  artificial  selection,  then,  as  practiced  by  cultiva- 
tors and  breeders,  suggested  the  metaphorical  phrase, 
"natural  selection."  There  is,  of  course,  an  obvious 
difference  between  the  artificial  selection  practiced  by 
the  breeder,  and  natural  selection.  Artificial  selection 
is  based  upon  qualities  which  are  useful,  not  to  the 
animal  or  plant  itself,  but  to  its  owner.  Those  quali- 
ties may  be  even  detrimental  to  the  vitality  of  the  ani- 
mal or  plant.  Natural  selection  is  obviously  related 
to  the  qualities  which  favor  the  life  of  the  individual 
or  the  propagation  of  the  race. 

That  natural  selection  expresses  a  principle  actually 
existing  in  nature  can  scarcely  be  doubted.  It  rests 
upon  no  hypothetical  foundation.  The  laws  of  hered- 
ity and  variation  and  the  tendency  to  geometrical  in- 
crease are  unquestionable  truths,  and  the  principle  of 
natural  selection  seems  to  be  an  inevitable  corollary 
from  them.  The  theory  has  a  charm  for  the  philo- 
sophic mind  in  its  wonderful  simplicity.     In  that  char- 

^73 


The  Origin  of  Species 

acteristic  it  reminds  one  of  Newton's  theory  of  univer- 
sal gravitation. 

It  should  further  be  noticed  that  natural  selection  is 
exactly  adapted  to  the  explanation  of  the  process  of 
evolution  of  living  beings,  in  that  it  accounts  at  once 
for  long  periods  of  stability  and  for  periods  of  com- 
paratively rapid  change.  In  other  words,  natural  se- 
lection is  at  times  a  conservative  and  at  other  times  a 
progressive  force.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  species  has 
become,  no  matter  how,  substantially  adapted  to  its 
environment.  Its  size,  form,  color,  instincts,  habits, 
mode  of  reproduction,  are  all  so  completely  adapted  to 
its  environment  that  it  just  fits  the  place  in  the  polity 
of  nature  in  which  it  finds  itself.  In  that  condition  the 
effect  of  natural  selection  must  be  conservative;  for, 
since  the  species  has  become  substantially  adapted  to  its 
environment,  any  considerable  change  will  be  likely  to 
be  injurious.  Natural  selection  will  therefore  stamp 
out  all  variations  that  diverge  widely  from  the  parent 
stock,  and  will  tend  to  keep  the  race,  generation  after 
generation,  true  to  its  specific  character.  But  now  let 
us  make  a  simple  supposition,  such  as,  according  to 
geological  evidence,  has  been  realized  again  and  again 
in  the  past.  Let  us  suppose  that  a  certain  portion  of 
the  earth's  crust  experiences  a  movement  of  elevation, 
with  the  result  of  converting  an  archipelago  into  a  con- 
tinuous area  of  continental  land.  Consider  how  far- 
reaching  must  be  the  effects  of  such  a  geographical 
change.  First  of  all,  in  the  immediate  locality  of  the 
upheaval,  an  area  of  sea  is  converted  into  land,  and 

174 


I 


A  Conservative  and  a  Progressive  Force 

this  necessitates  a  migration  of  the  aquatic  animals. 
Secondly,  the  crustal  movement  will  produce  greater 
or  less  climatic  change.  Elevation  of  land  produces 
directly  a  lowering  of  temperature,  amounting,  on  the 
average,  to  about  one  degree  Fahrenheit  for  every 
three  hundred  feet  of  elevation.  But  the  indirect  ef- 
fects of  such  an  elevation  may  be  very  much  greater 
than  the  direct  effects.  The  change  of  sea  into  land 
may  change  the  direction  of  ocean  currents,  which  ex- 
ert a  most  potent  influence  in  the  transfer  of  heat  from 
lower  to  higher  latitudes  and  in  the  transfer  of  cold 
from  higher  to  lower  latitudes.  If  the  movement  is 
not  purely  local,  but  is  a  part  of  a  general  move- 
ment of  continental  emergence,  attended  by  a  gen- 
eral diminution  in  the  areas  of  shallow  sea  adjoin- 
ing the  continents,  there  will  be  a  tendency,  as 
has  been  shown  by  Chamberlin  in  his  interesting 
discussion  of  the  causes  of  the  Glacial  period,  to 
make  a  colder  climate  all  over  the  globe,  by  dimin- 
ishing the  amount  of  carbon  dioxide  in  the  atmos- 
phere.* Thirdly,  the  changing  of  a  group  of  islands 
into  a  continuous  area  of  continental  land  will  give 
opportunity  for  species  that  had  been  confined  to 
particular  islands  to  extend  their  range  by  active  or 
passive  migration  throughout  the  territory  which  is 
now  continuous.  In  this  way  many  species  will  be 
brought  into  competition  with  new  rivals,  or  exposed 
to  attacks  of  new  enemies.  Many  species  will  be  com- 
pelled to  live  upon  different  kinds  of  food,  and  to  make 

*  See  page  73. 


The  Origin  of  Species 

other  changes  in  their  habits.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say- 
that  so  simple  a  change  as  the  supposed  crustal  eleva- 
tion will  throw  almost  every  species  of  plant  or  animal 
that  had  previously  lived  on  the  land  or  in  the  shallow 
seas  of  the  territory  in  question  more  or  less  out  of 
harmony  with  its  environment.  Under  these  condi- 
tions, natural  selection  will  cease  to  be  a  conservative 
force,  and  will  become  a  progressive  force.  The  aver- 
age character  of  each  species  in  the  area  being  no 
longer  adapted  to  its  environment,  variations  in  certain 
directions  will  give  to  their  possessors  an  advantage  in 
the  struggle  for  life;  and  individuals  thus  varying  will 
now  be  selected  to  survive  to  maturity,  instead  of  those 
that  keep  most  nearly  true  to  the  average  character  of 
the  species  in  former  generations. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  various  species  of  animals  and 
plants  have  arisen  by  a  gradual  process  of  evolution, 
we  ought  to  find  indications  thereof  in  the  relations 
existing  between  different  species  and  in  the  relations 
of  organisms  to  time  and  space.  The  limits  of  this  dis- 
cussion will  allow  us  to  do  little  more  than  to  give  a 
sort  of  inventory  of  the  indications  of  evolution — the 
growth-marks — that  may  be  recognized  in  the  present 
condition  of  plants  and  animals.  For  fuller  illustra- 
tion of  the  subject  reference  may  be  made  to  the  books 
in  which  the  argument  in  favor  of  evolution  is  pre- 
sented more  fully.  Or  perhaps  one  might  better  say, 
for  fuller  illustration  of  those  relations  of  plants  and 
animals  that  are  suggestive  of  evolution,  the  student 
may  refer  to  any  modern  book  on  any  department  of 

176 


Homology 

natural  history;  for  no  one  can  appreciatively  study 
zoology  or  botany,  comparative  anatomy  or  embry- 
ology, geographical  distribution  or  paleontology,  with- 
out finding  everywhere  illustrations  of  evolution. 

One  of  these  marks  of  growth  is  seen  in  the  preserva- 
tion of  homology  of  structure  in  organs  appropriated 
to  widely  different  uses.  A  classical  example  of  this 
sort  is  seen  in  the  structure  of  the  limbs  of  vertebrates. 
The  arm  of  a  man,  the  fore  leg  of  an  ordinary  mam- 
malian or  reptilian  quadruped,  the  wing  of  a  bird,  a 
bat,  or  a  pterodactyl,  the  flipper  of  a  whale — are  all 
constructed  on  the  same  plan.  The  pectoral  fins  of 
fishes  are  conformed  to  the  same  plan  in  its  general 
outline,  though  with  much  greater  differences  in  the 
details.  Now  such  a  relation  is  perfectly  intelligible,  if 
all  these  animals  have  had  a  common  ancestry,  and  all 
have  inherited  from  that  common  ancestry  a  common 
type  of  structure,  which  has  never  been  lost,  but  which 
has  been  more  or  less  modified  in  adaptation  to  varying 
conditions  and  varying  modes  of  life.  It  is  not,  how- 
ever, easy  to  see  why  those  organs  should  all  have  the 
same  plan  of  structure  if  each  one  has  been  created  in- 
dependently of  any  relation  to  any  of  the  others.  The 
teleological  suggestion  that  that  plan  of  structure  is 
maintained  in  all  these  organs  because  it  is  the  only 
plan,  or  at  least  the  best  plan,  for  organs  appropriated 
to  all  those  different  functions,  is  obviously  inadmis- 
sible, since  we  find  in  other  branches  of  the  animal 
kingdom  organs  for  every  one  of  these  functions — or- 
gans for  prehension,  for  walking,  for  flying,  and  for 

177 


The  Origin  of  Species 


*^         cs<     <^  >?h    v^ 


pj  ^  -'  (D  q; 

3  oj  !/:  tfi  oj 


i^5  c 


o  t-^   ^   h    .- 


"T^  ^  ^  -c  S  oj 


g    5   O   ;3-  (U 


5   0)   c/2   O  00~  ^     , 

c  ^  §  ^i^^  a>  - 
-    .  8  g.t^  ^  -^  .^ 


Rudimentary  Organs 

swimming — constructed  on  plans  which  present  no  re- 
semblance whatever  to  the  plan  of  vertebrate  limbs. 
The  invalidity  of  the  teleological  explanation  appears 
yet  more  manifest  when  we  notice  that  the  degrees  of 
resemblance  in  structure  between  the  various  forms  of 
limbs  that  have  been  referred  to  are  by  no  means  pro- 
portional to  the  degrees  of  resemblance  in  function. 
The  function  of  a  bat's  wing  is  essentially  the  same  as 
that  of  a  bird's  wing,  yet  the  bat's  wing  has  a  very 
close  resemblance  in  structure  to  the  arm  of  a  man  or 
the  fore  leg  of  a  dog,  while  its  resemblance  in  structure 
to  the  wing  of  a  bird  is  very  much  less  close.  In  like 
manner,  the  function  of  the  whale's  flipper  is  obviously 
much  more  similar  to  the  fish's  fin  than  to  the  man's 
arm  or  the  dog's  leg,  yet  the  flipper  of  the  whale  struc- 
turally resembles  the  fish's  fin  only  in  the  broadest  and 
most  general  outlines  of  its  plan,  while  its  resemblance 
to  the  arm  of  a  man  or  the  leg  of  a  dog  Is  far  more 
close  and  detailed.  The  inference  is  an  irresistible  one 
that  the  structure  of  these  various  organs  has  not  been 
determined  primarily  by  the  teleological  conditions,  but 
by  something  entirely  different. 

An  argument  of  the  same  sort,  but,  if  possible,  even 
more  conclusive,  is  drawn  from  rudimentary  organs. 
By  rudimentary  organs  we  mean  organs  which  In  par- 
ticular species  are  apparently  destitute  of  function.  In 
these  species  the  organs  In  question  are  generally  very 
small  and  more  or  less  Imperfect  In  structure,  whereas 
in  other  species  more  or  less  closely  allied  the  corre- 
sponding organs  are  of  full  size  and  complete  develop- 

179 


The  Origin  of  Species 

ment,  and  perform  their  normal  functions.  Rudi- 
mentary organs  are  by  no  means  a  rarity  in  organic 
nature,  being  found  in  almost  every  group  of  animals 
and  plants  and  in  almost  every  part  of  the  organism. 
A  single  example  will  illustrate  at  once  the  meaning  of 
rudimentary  organs  and  their  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  evolution.  In  ordinary  beetles  the  posterior 
wings  are  used  for  flying,  while  the  anterior  wings  are 
thickened  and  hardened,  and  serve  only  as  protective 
covers  beneath  which  the  posterior  wings  are  folded 
away  when  at  rest.  There  are,  however,  many  beetles 
which  are  destitute  of  the  power  of  flight.  In  some  of 
these  we  may  find  a  pair  of  little  posterior  wings  con- 
cealed under  the  wing  covers,  which  are  soldered  to- 
gether along  the  middle  of  the  back,  so  that  the  covers 
can  never  be  opened,  and  the  wings  can  never  be 
spread.  On  the  theory  of  evolution,  the  presence  of 
these  unused  posterior  wings  is  perfectly  intelligible. 
The  beetles  that  possess  them,  though  now  destitute 
of  the  power  of  flight,  are  the  modified  descendants  of 
other  beetles  that  did  fly ;  and,  though  they  have  ceased 
to  spread  their  wings,  they  still  possess  wings  of  small 
size,  which  they  have  inherited  from  their  flying  an- 
cestors. Apart  from  the  idea  of  evolution,  the  only 
conceivable  explanation  of  such  useless  organs  would 
be  in  some  sort  of  Platonic  conception  of  an  archetype 
in  the  Creative  Mind,  according  to  which  all  beetles 
were  created.  But,  if  any  one  finds  satisfaction  in  the 
thought  that  the  Creator  was  pleased  to  fashion  all 
beetles  according  to  a  coleopterous  archetype,  and  that 

1 80 


I 


Embryology 

the  possession  of  posterior  wings  was  a  part  of  the 
character  of  that  archetype,  his  satisfaction  will  soon 
be  disturbed  by  learning  that  there  are  other  flightless 
beetles  which  are  entirely  destitute  of  wings.  Evi- 
dently, then,  the  Creator  has  not  been  pleased  to  create 
all  flightless  beetles  with  wings  according  to  the  cole- 
opterous archetype,  but  only  some  of  them.  The  the- 
ory of  evolution  gives  a  satisfactory  explanation  both 
of  the  presence  of  wings  in  some  flightless  beetles  and 
of  their  absence  in  others.  We  have  only  to  suppose 
that  different  families  or  genera  of  beetles  at  different 
times  have  so  changed  their  habits  as  to  abandon  the 
exercise  of  flight.  Those  groups  of  beetles  in  which 
that  change  has  been  a  comparatively  recent  one,  still 
retain  wings  in  a  more  or  less  reduced  condition ;  but 
those  groups  of  beetles,  in  which  the  disuse  of  the 
power  of  flight  has  continued  for  a  much  longer  series 
of  generations,  have  completely  lost  the  wings.  The 
presence  of  a  rudimentary  organ  marks  an  interme- 
diate stage  between  the  complete  and  functional  devel- 
opment of  the  organ  and  its  total  loss. 

Other  indications  of  genetic  relationship  between 
different  species  are  furnished  by  the  facts  of  embry- 
ology. All  animals  above  the  unicellular  protozoa 
commence  life  in  the  condition  of  a  single  cell,  the 
ovum,  which  is  obviously  a  condition  essentially  similar 
to  the  permanent  condition  of  the  protozoa.  Some- 
what later,  in  the  development  of  the  multicellular  ani- 
mals, appears  what  has  been  called  the  gastrula  stage, 
which  appears  to  be,  though  with  much  variation  in 

i8i 


The  Origin  of  Species 

detail,  essentially  the  same  thing  in  all.  The  gastrula, 
when  most  typically  developed,  is  a  sac  formed  of  two 
layers  of  cells,  the  outer  and  the  inner  layer  being 
more  or  less  distinctly  differentiated  from  each  other. 
It  is  a  very  noteworthy  fact  that  these  two  layers  of 
cells  which   form   the  gastrula  have  respectively  the 


Fig.  10. — Six  stages  in  the  development  of  the  gastrula  in  Am- 
phioxus  (a  very  low  type  of  vertebrate).  From  Gegenbaur's 
"  Vergleichende  Anatomie  der  Wirbelthiere." 

same  destination  in  all  animals.  The  outer  layer 
always  forms  the  epidermis,  and,  in  those  animals 
which  have  a  well  differentiated  nervous  system,  it 
forms  also  the  nervous  centers  and  the  essential  parts 
of  the  sense  organs.  While  the  tissues  derived  from 
the  outer  layer  of  the  gastrula  are  uniformly  the  ones 
which  are  in  relation  to  the  external  world,  the  internal 
layer  of  the  gastrula  develops  with  equal  constancy  the 

182 


The  Gastrula 

epithelial  lining  of  the  alimentary  canal  and  its  append- 
ages. In  some  of  the  lower  multicellular  animals,  as, 
for  instance,  the  coelentera,  the  adult  development 
passes  little  beyond  the  gastrula  stage.  The  adult  body 
consists  of  a  double-walled  sac,  whose  single  cavity  is 
essentially  a  digestive  cavity,  and  whose  wall  exhibits 
but  slight  development  of  any  tissues  between  the  in- 
tegument and  the  lining  of  the  digestive  cavity.  In 
the  higher  animals,  however,  a  great  variety  of  tissues 
come  to  be  developed  between  the  epidermis  and  the 
alimentary  mucous  membrane.  But,  however  great  the 
complexity  of  these  intermediate  tissues,  the  destiny 
of  the  primitive  layers  of  the  gastrula  remains  essen- 
tially the  same.  This  similarity  in  the  early  stages 
of  development,  and  this  essential  homology  of 
the  epidermis  and  of  the  epithelium  of  the  alimentary 
canal  in  all  multicellular  animals,  are  profoundly  sug- 
gestive of  a  unity  of  origin  for  the  whole  animal 
kingdom. 

Not  only  do  we  find  in  the  very  earliest  stages  of 
development  an  essential  unity  pervading  the  whole 
animal  kingdom,  but,  in  later  stages  of  development, 
we  find  a  very  general  law  that  immature  conditions 
of  the  higher  or  more  specialized  animals  exhibit 
greater  or  less  resemblance  to  lower  or  less  specialized 
animals  more  or  less  closely  allied  to  them.  A  larval 
crab  (brachyuran)  has  a  long  jointed  tail  (abdomen) 
like  that  of  a  lobster  (macruran)  ;  but,  in  its  later  de- 
velopment, other  parts  of  the  body  increase  in  size  out 
of  all  proportion  to  the  tail,  which  thus  becomes  the 

;83 


The  Origin  of  Species 

insignificant  rudiment  which  characterizes  the  adult 
crab.  At  a  certain  stage  in  the  development  of  man, 
or  any  other  mammal,  the  heart  is  a  two-chambered 
organ  like  that  of  a  fish,  and  the  aorta  passing  forward 
from  the  heart  divides  right  and  left  into  a  series  of 
branches  like  the  branchial  arches  of  a  fish.  Some  of 
these  arches  of  the  aorta  become  obliterated  in  the  sub- 
sequent process  of  development.  Others  are  converted 
into  the  main  arterial  trunks  of  the  systemic  and  pul- 
monary circulation.  In  the  same  stage  of  the  embryo 
in  which  the  aortic  arches  may  be  seen  branching  right 
and  left  from  the  main  stem  of  the  aorta,  the  cavity  of 
the  pharynx  extends  itself  on  each  side  into  a  series 
of  pouches,  which  nearly  meet  a  corresponding  series 
of  depressions  on  the  sides  of  the  neck.  In  fishes  these 
pouches  open  externally,  the  openings  being  the  gill  slits 
which  are  so  conspicuous  in  the  neck  of  a  shark.  It 
has  been  commonly  asserted  that  such  perforations  are 
formed  in  the  embryos  of  all  vertebrates;  but  more 
recent  studies  seem  to  indicate  that,  in  the  mammalian 
embryo,  at  the  stage  of  fullest  development  of  the 
pharyngeal  pouches,  a  thin  membrane  separates  each 
pouch  from  the  corresponding  external  depression.  It 
is,  however,  none  the  less  obvious  that  these  pouches 
and  the  corresponding  external  depressions  are  homol- 
ogous with  the  gill  pouches  and  gill  slits  of  a  shark.  In 
the  adult  mammal  these  structures  are  obliterated,  with 
the  exception  of  one  on  each  side.  In  the  case  of  that 
one,  the  pharyngeal  pouch  becomes  the  Eustachian 
tube,   the   external   depression   becomes   the   external 

184 


Fig.  11, — Three  successive  stages  of  embryos  in  four  classes  of 
vertebrates,  y^,  shark;  ^.salamander;  C,  chick;  Z>,  man. 
The  formation  of  gill  slits  is  seen  in  the  earliest  stage  of  all 
alike ;  but  the  slits  are  seen  to  persist  in  the  fish,  and  to  dis- 
appear in  the  others.  From  Romanes'  "  Darwin  and  After 
Darwin." 


The  Origin  of  Species 

auditory  meatus,  and  the  membrane  between  them 
(with  some  modification)  becomes  the  tympanic 
membrane. 

If  we  were  converting  a  Roman  trireme  into  a  steam- 
boat, we  should  find  it  convenient  to  plug  up  most  of 
the  oar-holes,  though  it  might  be  advantageous  to  keep 
some  of  them  for  use  as  port-holes;  but,  if  we  were 
building  a  steamboat  de  novo,  it  would  be  an  absurd 
procedure  to  bore  a  series  of  holes  almost  through  its 
sides,  simply  that  we  might  have  the  opportunity  to 
plug  them  up.* 

The  law  that  immature  stages  of  higher  or  more 
specialized  organisms  tend  to  resemble  the  adult  forms 
of  lower  or  less  specialized  organisms,  is  of  very  wide 
application.  In  many  cases,  however,  the  law  fails  to 
be  exemplified  by  reason  of  adaptive  modifications  in 
the  larval  stages.  The  developing  organism  must  pos- 
sess at  every  stage  a  structure  adapted  to  the  conditions 
of  life  in  which  it  is  placed ;  otherwise  it  could  not  live. 
It  is  often  the  case  that  the  conditions  of  life  to  which 
immature  and  larval  forms  are  subject,  are  entirely 
different  from  those  under  which  the  adults  will  live, 
and  equally  different  from  the  conditions  in  which 
lived  those  lower  or  less  specialized  creatures  which  are 
supposed  to  have  been  their  ancestors.  Under  these 
conditions,  structures  are  developed  in  the  larva  which 
have  no  relation  to  their  ancestry,  but  are  determined 
solely  by  their  present  conditions  of  life. 

The  parallelism  that  may  often  be  traced  between 

*Conn,  Evolution  of  To-day^  p.  132. 
186 


Triple  Parallelism 

a  series  of  organisms  in  the  order  of  systemic  rank  and 
a  series  of  embryonic  and  larval  stages  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  highest  and  most  specialized  forms,  de- 
rives additional  significance  for  the  evolutionist  when 
we  can  recognize  a  third  series  parallel  to  these  two, 
namely,  the  series  of  forms  in  successive  geological 
periods.  Many  illustrations  might  be  given  of  this 
triple  parallelism — the  parallelism  of  embryonic  de- 
velopment, systemic  rank,  and  geological  succession. 
That  we  do  not  find  such  a  triple  parallelism  univer- 
sally exhibited  is  easily  explained ;  on  the  one  hand,  by 
the  adaptive  modifications  of  larval  and  immature 
forms  to  which  reference  has  just  been  made,  and,  on 
the  other,  by  the  imperfection  of  our  knowledge  of 
extinct  forms  of  life. 

In  very  many  respects  the  order  of  succession  of 
species  in  geological  time  is  what  we  should  naturally 
expect  on  the  theory  of  evolution.*  The  most  con- 
spicuous aspect  of  the  general  succession  of  forms  in 
geological  time  is  the  continuous  approximation  to  the 
character  of  the  fauna  and  flora  of  the  present  day. 
The  Cambrian  fauna  and  flora  differ  widely  from  those 
of  the  present  day.  No  species,  and  not  more  than 
one  or  two  genera,  of  organisms  now  living  existed  in 
the  Cambrian ;  and  to  a  large  extent  even  the  orders 
and  classes  of  the  present  fauna  and  flora  were  lacking 
in  the  Cambrian.  As  we  come  down  through  the  suc- 
cession of  geological  eras,  there  is  a  continuous  ap- 

*  Heilprin,  Geological  Evidences  of  Evolution  ;  Dana,  Revised  Text-book  of 
Geology,  p.  450. 

187 


The  Origin  of  Species 

proximation  to  the  character  of  the  fauna  and  flora  of 
the  present  time.  With  this  increasing  resemblance  of 
the  life  of  successive  geological  periods  to  that  of  to- 
day, comes  an  increase  in  the  number  of  classes  and 
orders,  and  a  continually  increasing  diversification  of 
the  types  of  structure.  The  classes  and  orders  repre- 
sented in  Cambrian  time  are  comparatively  few.  In 
the  progress  of  geological  time,  very  few  groups,  if 
any,  entitled  to  rank  as  classes  have  become  entirely 
extinct,  though  several  classes  have  greatly  diminished 
in  numbers.  Many  new  classes  have  been  added  from 
time  to  time;  some  orders  have  become  extinct,  but 
a  much  greater  number  of  new  orders  have  been 
added ;  so  that  there  has  been  in  general  a  continuous 
increase  in  the  number  of  groups  of  classical  and  or- 
dinal rank.  This  progressive  diversification  of  the  ani- 
mal and  vegetable  kingdoms  suggests  the  figure  of  a 
tree.  In  the  Cambrian  we  have  already  a  few  great 
branches  representing  most  of  the  sub-kingdoms  that 
now  exist;  but  the  increase  in  the  number  of  classes 
and  orders,  as  we  come  down  through  geological  time, 
reminds  us  of  the  increasing  ramification  which  the 
tree  exhibits  as  we  go  farther  and  farther  from  the 
origin  of  the  main  branches. 

Not  only  do  we  find  in  successive  geological  periods 
an  increasing  number  of  classes  and  orders,  but  we  find 
also  in  later  periods  an  increasing  number  of  types  of 
high  grade.*  In  the  earlier  geological  periods  the 
higher  forms  of  life  are  conspicuously  absent.     In  the 

*  See  table  on  page  103. 
188 


Paleontology  and  Evolution 

Cambrian  we  find  no  vertebrates  whatever,  and  in  the 
Sikirian  no  vertebrates  above  the  class  of  fishes.  Mam- 
mals do  not  appear  until  the  Triassic,  and  the  typical 
placental  mammals  probably  not  until  the  Tertiary. 
Among  invertebrates  perhaps  the  highest  class  are  the 
insects.  These  are  entirely  unrepresented  in  the  Cam- 
brian, and  in  the  Ordovician  we  find  only  one  or  two 
of  the  very  lowest  orders.  Not  until  Mesozoic  time  do 
the  higher  orders  of  insects  appear.  Among  mollusks 
the  highest  class,  the  cephalopods,  begins  indeed  in  the 
Cambrian,  but  the  higher  of  the  two  sub-classes  of 
that  class,  the  dibranchia,  not  until  the  Triassic.  The 
higher  orders  of  gastropods  likewise  do  not  appear 
until  the  Triassic.  In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
highest  of  the  sub-kingdoms,  the  highest  classes  in  the 
respective  sub-kingdoms,  and  the  highest  orders  in  the 
respective  classes,  are  comparatively  late  in  their  ap- 
pearance. It  is  needless  to  say,  this  condition  of  things 
is  exactly  what  might  be  expected  in  accordance  with 
the  theory  of  evolution. 

Another  class  of  paleontological  facts  favorable  to 
the  theory  of  evolution  is  seen  in  the  striking  resem- 
blance which  the  earliest  members  of  a  class  or  order 
generally  present  to  groups  that  were  already  in  ex- 
istence. The  earliest  amphibians  were  not  at  all  like 
the  toads  and  salamanders  of  to-day,  but  were  in  many 
respects  much  like  some  of  the  ancient  fishes  that  pre- 
ceded them.  In  these  earliest  amphibians,  as  in  many 
fishes,  the  clavicles  are  still  in  the  condition  of  dermal 
bones  forming  a  defensive  armor  in  the  pectoral  region 

189 


The  Origin  of  Species 

of  the  body.  They  had  not  yet  come  to  be  internal 
bones  serving  solely  to  brace  the  shoulder  girdle.  The 
earliest  birds,  which  made  their  appearance  in  the 
Jurassic,  showed  remarkable  reptilian  characters.  Their 
jaws  were  set  with  rows  of  teeth ;  the  metacarpal  bones 
(see  Fig.  9)  were  still  free  and  somewhat  movable,  as 
in  the  forefoot  of  a  reptile,  instead  of  being  ankylosed 
together  to  make  a  more  rigid  basis  for  the  attachment 
of  feathers ;  their  tails  were  supported  by  a  long  series 
of  vertebrse,  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  tails  of  modern 
birds,  whose  imperfectly  developed  vertebrse  are  con- 
solidated into  a  mere  stump  to  support  a  fan-shaped 
tuft  of  feathers.  In  like  manner,  the  earliest  mammals, 
appearing  in  the  Triassic,  almost  certainly  resembled 
reptiles  in  having  distinct  coracoid  bones,  in  the  struc- 
ture of  their  reproductive  organs,  and  in  their  ovipa- 
rous reproduction.  Again,  in  early  Tertiary  time,  the 
earliest  hoofed  mammals  (ungulata)  were  scarcely 
distinguishable  from  the  claw-bearing  mammals  (un- 
guiculata)  with  which  they  were  associated.  In  the 
highly  specialized  forms  which  have  been  developed  in 
later  times,  the  ungulates  are  very  sharply  distinguished 
from  the  unguiculate  orders.  In  the  unguiculate 
mammals,  the  radius  and  ulna  are  generally  so  artic- 
ulated as  to  allow  considerable  rotation  of  the  fore-arm, 
the  bones  of  the  hand  and  foot  are  considerably  mov- 
able, the  digits  are  almost  always  five  in  number,  and 
each  digit  is  armed  with  a  claw  for  seizing  and  tear- 
ing the  food,  or  rarely  with  a  flat  nail  for  protection. 
In  the  ungulates,  the  radius  and  ulna  are  so  articulated 

190 


Progressive  Specialization  ^***6£g£Niiu 

as  to  allow  no  rotation  of  the  fore-arm,  or  even  fused 
together  into  a  single  bone,  the  bones  of  the  hand  and 
foot  allow  but  little  movement,  the  digits  are  generally 
less  than  the  typical  number,  being  sometimes  reduced 
even  to  two  or  one,  and  the  end  of  each  digit  is  encased 
in  a  horny  box  or  shoe  which  we  call  the  hoof.  The 
general  effect  of  these  anatomical  characteristics  of  the 
ungulates  is,  of  course,  to  deprive  the  limbs  entirely  of 
tactile  and  prehensile  function,  leaving  them  to  serve 
exclusively  for  support  and  locomotion.  But  in  the 
early  Tertiary  the  primitive  ungulates  have  diverged 
so  slightly  from  the  unguiculates  that  it  is  almost  by 
an  arbitrary  line  that  they  are  separated  from  them  in 
the  classification.  Perhaps  the  most  striking  illustra- 
tion of  this  increasing  specialization  of  a  group  with 
the  lapse  of  time  is  seen  in  that  remarkable  series  of 
fossil  forms  by  which  we  can  trace  the  gradation  from 
a  creature  with  five  fingers  and  five  toes  to  the  modern 
horse.  In  this  remarkable  series,  the  inner  and  the 
outer  fingers  and  toes  successively  diminish  and  dis- 
appear, until  only  the  middle  finger  and  the  middle  toe 
are  left  (see  Fig.  9),  while  the  bones  of  the  limbs  in- 
crease in  length,  and  the  teeth  increase  in  complexity. 
Again,  it  is  noticed,  as  a  rule,  in  geological  history 
that  a  group  of  animals  or  plants  which  has  once  dis- 
appeared does  not  reappear.  The  few  apparent  excep- 
tions to  this  law  may  be  readily  accounted  for  on  the 
principle  of  the  imperfection  of  the  geological  record, 
of  which  somewhat  will  be  said  later.*    In  general,  the 

*  Page  202. 
191 


The  Origin  of  Species 

introduction  and  the  extinction  of  orders  or  classes 
seem  to  have  been  gradual.  Each  group  commences 
with  a  comparatively  small  number  of  species,  and  in- 
creases gradually  to  a  maximum,  after  which  it  may 
again  decline.  As  has  been  already  shown,*  in  tracing 
the  overthrow  of  catastrophism  and  the  rise  of  uni- 
formitarianism,  it  has  long  been  acknowledged  that 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  in  any  epoch  of  universal 
extermination  since  the  beginning  of  life  upon  the 
planet.  The  changes  that  have  taken  place  in  the 
faunas  and  floras  of  successive  eras  have  been  not  by 
universal  extermination  and  new  creation,  but  by  the 
disappearance  of  old  species  and  the  introduction  of 
new  species  one  by  one.  In  all  these  respects  it  is 
obvious  that  the  aspect  of  the  geological  succession  of 
life  is  strongly  favorable  to  the  theory  of  evolution. 

The  distribution  of  plants  and  animals  in  space,  like 
their  distribution  in  time,  corresponds  in  general  with 
what  would  be  expected  on  the  theory  of  evolution. 
The  theory  of  evolution,  of  course,  assumes  that  all  the 
individuals  of  a  single  species  are  derived  from  a  com- 
mon ancestry.  By  this  it  is  not  meant  that  they  are  all 
descended  from  a  single  individual  or  from  a  single 
pair,  for  this  is  not  likely  to  have  been  the  case  with 
any  species  of  animal  or  plant;  but  rather  that  they 
have  descended  from  a  comparatively  small  number 
of  individuals  in  some  limited  area.  It  is  further  sup- 
posed that  a  species,  starting  thus  in  a  limited  area,  dif- 
fuses itself  by  active  and  passive  migration  until  its 

*  Pag:es  155,  161. 

192 


Geographical  Distribution 

spread  is  checked  by  impassable  barriers,  inhospitable 
climate,  or  unfavorable  conditions  of  life.  We  should, 
then,  expect  that  the  range  of  each  particular  species 
would  be  continuous.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  find  that 
the  range  of  species  is  generally  continuous,  and  the 
exceptional  cases  in  which  the  range  of  a  species  is  not 
strictly  continuous  generally  admit  of  ready  explana- 
tion. For  instance,  if  we  find  colonies  of  plants  and 
insects  that  belong  in  Greenland  or  Labrador  living 
on  the  higher  summits  of  the  White  Mountains,  or 
find,  in  like  manner,  colonies  of  plants  and  insects  that 
belong  in  Lapland  living  in  the  Alps,  the  fact  is  readily 
explained  by  reference  to  the  Glacial  period.  The 
northern  forms  of  life  migrated  southward  (actively 
or  passively)  at  that  time;  and,  when  the  main  body 
of  a  northern  species  migrated  northward  again  as  the 
climate  grew  warmer,  colonies  that  had  become  estab- 
lished on  mountain  summits  were  able  permanently  to 
maintain  themselves,  because  the  cold  climate  of  high 
mountain  regions  shielded  them  from  the  competition 
of  the  southern  forms  that  had  taken  possession  of  the 
lowlands.  Moreover,  according  to  the  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, all  the  species  of  a  single  genus  ought  to  have 
had  a  common  ancestry,  but,  in  general,  further  back 
in  time  than  we  should  look  for  the  common  ancestry 
of  the  individuals  of  a  single  species.  We  should  nat- 
urally expect,  then,  that  the  range  of  genera  would 
generally  be  continuous ;  but  that,  since  the  origin  of  a 
genus  is  likely  to  have  been  more  remote  in  time  than 
the  origin  of  a  species,  there  would  have  been  opportu- 

193 


The  Origin  of  Species 

nity  for  a  larger  number  of  those  geographical  changes 
which  break  up  the  continuity  of  what  was  previously 
a  continuous  area.  In  general,  then,  the  range  of 
genera  should  be  either  actually  continuous,  or  capable 
of  being  made  continuous  by  such  geographical  or  cli- 
matic changes  as  it  is  within  the  bounds  of  reasonable 
probability  to  assume  to  have  taken  place  in  geological 
time  not  very  remote.  The  facts  in  regard  to  the  range 
of  genera  exactly  correspond  with  this  assumption. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  evolution  would  im- 
ply that  the  origin  of  the  more  comprehensive  groups, 
as  classes  and  sub-kingdoms,  must  belong  to  a  very 
remote  antiquity,  antedating  by  far  the  present  distri- 
bution of  sea  and  land'  and  the  development  of  most 
of  the  mountain  ranges  and  other  conspicuous  features 
of  the  earth's  surface.  Since,  then,  the  origin  of  these 
more  comprehensive  groups  antedates  the  establish- 
ment of  the  present  geographical  features,  we  should 
naturally  expect  that  the  distribution  of  these  groups 
would  be  substantially  world-wide;  and,  again,  this 
supposition  is  exactly  in  accord  with  the  facts. 

The  bearing  of  the  facts  of  geographical  distribu- 
tion upon  the  theory  of  evolution  appears  more  signifi- 
cant when  we  take  them  in  connection  with  the  facts 
of  geological  succession.  Wallace  announced  many 
years  ago  the  remarkable  proposition,  that  "every  spe- 
cies has  come  into  existence  coincident  both  in  space 
and  time  with  a  pre-existing  closely  allied  species."* 
It  would  be  impossible  actually  to  prove  that  proposi- 

*  Contributions  to  the  Theory  of  Natural  Selection^  p.  5. 
194 


I 


Geographical  and  Geological  Distribution 

tion  in  regard  to  every  known  species,  since  our  knowl- 
edge of  extinct  life  is  so  far  from  being  complete. 
Nevertheless,  the  proposition  can  be  shown  to  be  true 
in  so  many  instances  that  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  it  is  to  be  accepted  as  a  universal  law.  It  is  need- 
less to  say  that  the  theory  of  evolution  would  require 
just  such  a  relation  as  is  expressed  in  Wallace's  for- 
mula. Not  only  does  it  seem  to  be  true  that  every  spe- 
cies has  come  into  existence  in  a  region  where  there 
was  already  some  nearly  allied  species;  we  find  also 
in  certain  regions  that  the  general  character  of  whole 
faunas  in  successive  geological  periods  presents  extra- 
ordinary resemblances.  In  late  Tertiary  and  Quater- 
nary time,  Australia  had  already  become  the  land  of 
kangaroos,  phalangers,  and  wombats.  Australia  is  to- 
day likewise  the  land  of  kangaroos,  phalangers,  and 
w^ombats.  The  Tertiary  and  Quaternary  species  have 
become  extinct,  but  the  same  families  survive.  In  like 
manner,  in  late  Tertiary  and  Quaternary  time.  South 
America  was  the  land  of  sloths,  ant-eaters,  and  arma- 
dillos, and  South  America  to-day  is  still  the  land  of 
sloths,  ant-eaters,  and  armadillos.  Now,  on  the  sup- 
position that  the  present  kangaroos  are  the  descendants 
of  the  Tertiary  kangaroos,  and  the  present  sloths  the 
descendants  of  the  Tertiary  sloths,  these  facts  are  ex- 
actly what  we  should  expect.  Apart  from  the  theory 
of  evolution,  it  is  not  easy  to  find  a  satisfactory  reason 
for  such  facts.  The  teleological  suggestion  that  kanga- 
roos, phalangers,  and  wombats  are  better  adapted  to 
the  climate  and  the  conditions  of  life  in  Australia  than 

195 


The  Origin  of  Species 

any  other  animals,  seems  not  to  be  true,  for  we  know 
that  sheep  and  rabbits  and  other  creatures  introduced 
into  Austraha  from  Europe  prove  so  exceedingly  well 
adapted  to  the  climate  and  conditions  of  life  in  that 
continent  that  their  rapid  multiplication  threatens  to 
starve  out  many  of  the  indigenous  species. 

Another  consideration  bearing  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  theory  of  evolution  is  the  indefiniteness  of  zoolog- 
ical and  botanical  classification.  In  the  first  place,  there 
is  great  difference  of  opinion  among  naturalists  in 
many  cases  as  to  the  units  of  classification,  the  species. 
One  naturalist  will  divide  a  genus  into  twenty  or  thirty 
species,  while  another  will  recognize  only  two  or  three 
species,  regarding  the  others  as  mere  varieties.  It  is 
a  paradoxical,  but  nevertheless  a  perfectly  intelligible 
fact,  that  the  difficulty  in  the  delimitation  of  species  is 
greatest  in  those  groups  of  animals  and  plants  which 
have  been  most  thoroughly  studied,  and  in  the  faunas 
and  floras  of  those  regions  of  the  earth  which  are  best 
known.-  If  a  traveler  makes  a  hasty  journey  through 
some  hitherto  unexplored  part  of  central  Africa,  and 
brings  back  such  specimens  as  his  caravan  can  readily 
transport,  it  will  generally  be  found  that  he  has  col- 
lected only  a  single  specimen,  or  at  the  most  a  few 
specimens,  of  each  species ;  and  a  naturalist  who  classi- 
fies and  names  them  will  find  it  easy  to  determine  how 
many  species  are  represented,  since  almost  every  speci- 
men will  represent  a  distinct  species.  But,  in  a  country 
like  England  or  New  England,  where  hundreds  or 
thousands  of  specimens  of  most  species  of  plant  and 

196 


Indefiniteness  of  Classification 

animal  have  been  collected  and  examined,  it  will  often 
be  found  that  some  of  the  specimens  of  any  one  species 
vary  considerably  from  the  average  character  of  their 
own  species,  and  approach  more  or  less  the  character 
of  some  allied  species.  The  greater  the  number  of 
specimens  collected,  the  more  likely  are  such  grada- 
tional  forms  to  appear;  and,  with  the  appearance  of 
such  gradational  forms,  the  question  arises  whether 
we  are  dealing  with  a  number  of  species,  or  with  a 
single  species  presenting  a  number  of  varieties.  That 
is  exactly  what  we  should  expect  on  the  theory  of  evo- 
lution, and  exactly  what  we  should  not  expect  apart 
from  the  theory  of  evolution. 

When  we  turn  our  attention  from  the  taxonomic 
unit,  the  species,  to  the  more  comprehensive  groups — 
when  we  consider  the  division  of  the  animal  or  the 
vegetable  kingdom  into  sub-kingdoms,  classes,  orders, 
and  families — it  is  perfectly  safe  to  say  that  no  two 
naturalists  can  agree  in  all  details  upon  a  classification 
either  in  botany  or  in  zoology,  unless  they  reach  an 
agreement  by  the  same  method  of  compromise  by 
which  political  conventions  construct  platforms  and 
ecclesiastical  assemblies  construct  creeds.  By  mutual 
compromise,  two  or  more  naturalists  may,  of  course, 
construct  a  classification  of  the  vegetable  or  the  animal 
kingdom,  which  will  not  represent  exactly  the  opinions 
of  any  one  of  them,  but  which  no  one  of  them  will 
think  very  bad.  Groups  of  plants  and  animals  that 
seem  to  be  clearly  marked  by  trenchant  characters, 
when  we  consider  only  their  most  typical  members, 

197 


The  Origin  of  Species 

seem  in  some  of  their  aberrant  forms  to  blend  with 
each  other  hke  the  colors  of  the  spectrum. 

These  are  some  of  the  aspects  of  organic  nature  that 
are  eminently  suggestive  of  the  theory  of  evolution. 
As  has  been  already  said,  the  limits  of  this  discussion 
have  allowed  only  an  inventory  of  the  classes  of  evi- 
dence. The  cumulative  force  of  that  evidence  reveals 
itself  only  in  prolonged  study  of  some  one  or  other  of 
the  departments  of  biology. 

The  mass  of  evidence  which  organic  nature  affords 
in  favor  of  evolution  is  usually  met  by  the  opponents 
of  evolution  with  a  single  stock  argument.  They  say 
that,  if  one  species  is  derived  from  another  species,  we 
ought  to  find  close  gradations  between  different  spe- 
cies ;  and  this,  they  tell  us,  we  do  not  find.  A  species 
is  usually  clearly  marked.  There  is  no  danger  of  mis- 
taking a  tiger  for  a  leopard,  or  a  grizzly  bear  for  a 
polar  bear. 

It  is,  however,  not  true,  in  the  unqualified  way  in 
which  that  proposition  is  often  asserted,  that  species 
are  sharply  marked,  and  that  intermediate  stages  are 
w^anting.  The  fact  to  which  reference  has  already 
been  made,  that  naturalists  often  differ  widely  as  to 
the  number  of  species  included  in  a  well-known  genus, 
shows  that  species  are  not  limited  in  all  cases  in  the 
definite  and  unmistakable  way  which  is  often  asserted. 
There  are,  indeed,  few  better  examples  of  the  logical 
fallacy  of  reasoning  in  a  circle,  than  the  way  in  which 
the  evidence  afforded  by  gradational  forms  is  disposed 
of  by  the  opponents  of  evolution.     If,  between  two 

198 


Absence  of  Gradation  between  Species 

types  which  differ  considerably  from  each  other,  and 
which  have  been  confidently  supposed  to  be  distinct 
species,  further  investigation  discovers  a  series  of  gra- 
dational  forms,  those  two  extreme  types  with  all  the 
intermediate  gradations  are  combined  into  a  single 
species,  which  is  then  said  to  be  widely  variable.  And 
then  the  anti-evolutionist  is  able  to  affirm  that,  while 
there  are  gradations  between  varieties,  there  are  no 
gradations  between  species.  Of  course  "the  evidence  of 
gradation  between  types  that  appear  very  distinct  is 
not  lessened  by  giving  to  the  extreme  types  one  specific 
name  instead  of  two.  The  fact  of  gradation  is  sug- 
gestive of  evolution,  however  much  it  may  be  dis- 
guised by  a  change  of  nomenclature. 

Nevertheless,  though  the  assertion  that  species  are 
definitely  limited  is  not  true  in  the  unqualified  way  in 
which  that  assertion  is  often  made,  it  does  appear  to 
be  true  of  the  larger  number  of  existing  species.  As 
a  rule,  we  do  not  find  a  series  of  fine  gradations  be- 
tween two  existing  species.  But,  according  to  the 
theory  of  evolution,  we  ought  not  to  expect  in  most 
cases  to  find  such  a  series  of  gradations.  The  evolu- 
tionist does  not  assume,  in  general,  that  one  species 
has  been  derived  from  another  species  which  still  ex- 
ists. Only  under  exceptional  conditions  could  that  be 
the  case.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  condition  of 
the  evolution  of  a  new  species  is  that  the  environment 
should  have  so  changed  that  the  parent  type  is  no 
longer  in  harmony  with  it.  As  a  rule,  then,  the  very 
condition  that  gives  rise  to  the  evolution  of  a  new 


The  Origin  of  Species 

species  secures  the  extinction  of  the  old  species.  An 
exception  to  this  rule  would  be  found  in  a  case  in  which 
some  members  of  a  species  became  in  some  way  isolated 
from  the  remainder  of  the  species,  and  the  two  groups 
isolated  from  each  other  were  exposed  to  somewhat 
different  environment.  In  such  cases  a  new  species 
might  be  developed  in  one  area,  while  the  parent  spe- 
cies might  survive  in  another.  In  this  way  may  be 
explained  the  frequent  occurrence  of  peculiar  species 
in  islands,  while  the  nearly  allied  species  from  which 
they  have  probably  been  derived  still  survive  on  the 
mainland.  But  it  is  obvious  that  in  the  majority  of 
cases  the  evolution  of  a  new  species  must  be  accom- 
panied by  the  extinction  of  the  parent  species.  We 
ought,  then,  to  expect  as  a  rule  no  fine  series  of  grada- 
tions between  existing  species. 

This  answer,  however,  only  shifts  the  difficulty  to 
another  point.  If  we  have  at  the  present  time  two 
closely  allied  species,  A  and  B,  the  probability  is  not 
that  A  was  derived  from  B,  or  that  B  was  derived  from 
A,  but  rather  that  each  of  the  two  existing  species  was 
derived  from  some  species  C,  now  extinct.  While, 
therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  a  series  of  grada- 
tions between  A  and  B,  there  must  have  existed  in  the 
past  a  series  of  gradations  more  or  less  close  between 
C  and  A  and  between  C  and  B.  The  theory  of  evolu- 
tion, then,  requires  a  series  of  more  or  less  fine  grada- 
tions between  every  species  and  some  other  species  that 
preceded  it  in  geological  time. 

It  must  be  admitted  that,  in  the  great  majority  of 

200 


Absence  of  Gradation  in  Fossil  Forms 

cases,  we  do  not  find  any  such  gradational  forms  pre- 
served as  fossils.  In  general,  if  allowance  is  made  for 
the  fragmentary  and  imperfect  character  of  the  mate- 
rial with  which  the  paleontologist  has  to  deal,  species 
of  fossil  organisms  appear  to  be  fully  as  well  defined 
as  those  of  living  organisms.  And  not  only  do  species 
appear  in  geological  history  without  any  series  of  gra- 
dational forms  connecting  them  with  pre-existing  spe- 
cies, but  in  many  cases  more  comprehensive  groups, 
as  orders  or  classes,  appear  to  flash  suddenly  into  ex- 
istence with  no  more  recognizable  trace  of  ancestry 
than  if  they  were  so  many  Melchizedeks.  The  most 
startling  of  all  cases  of  this  sort  is  the  Cambrian  fauna. 
Prior  to  the  Cambrian  we  find  only  obscure  and  doubt- 
ful traces  of  life,  but  in  the  beginning  of  the  Cambrian 
we  find  already  a  highly  diversified  fauna  of  marine 
invertebrates.  In  statistical  comparisons  of  fossil  fau- 
nas with  the  existing  fauna,  those  groups  must  ob- 
viously be  thrown  out  of  account  whose  members  pos- 
sess no  skeletons,  since  it  is  only  under  very  exceptional 
conditions  that  such  groups  can  be  represented  by  fos- 
sils.* In  the  scheme  of  classification  adopted  in  Parker 
and  Haswell's  'Text-book  of  Zoology,"  there  are  nine 
phyla  or  sub-kingdoms,  and  twenty-nine  classes,  some 
or  all  of  whose  members  possess  skeletal  structures 
suf^ciently  developed  to  entitle  them  to  be 'included  in 
such  a  comparison.  It  is  certainly  an  astonishing  fact 
that  seven  out  of  these  nine  sub-kingdoms,  and  fourteen 

*  The  improbable  does  sometimes  happen.     Fossil  jellyfishes  occur  in  the 
Cambrian,  and  in  later  formations. 

201 


The  Origin  of  Species 

out  of  these  twenty-nine  classes  are  represented  in  the 
Cambrian.* 

Darwin,  in  his  "Origin  of  Species,"  declared  that,  in 
his  view,  such  paleontological  facts  as  those  just  cited 
afforded  the  *'most  obvious  and  serious  objection" 
against  his  theory.  It  is  certain  that  the  facts  of  pale- 
ontology appear  far  more  favorable  to  the  theory  of 
evolution  to-day  than  they  did  forty  years  ago,  for  the 
progress  of  discovery  has  brought  to  light  a  vast  num- 
ber of  intermediate  forms  between  types  previously 
known,  and  has  bridged  many  of  the  most  conspicuous 
gaps.  Nevertheless,  so  many  gaps  still  remain  un- 
bridged  that  Darwin^s  answer  to  the  objection,  as  it 
presented  itself  to  his  mind,  is  still  appropriate;  and 
indeed  our  belief  in  evolution  must  stand  or  fall  ac- 
cording to  the  sufficiency  of  that  answer.  Darwin's 
answer  to  the  paleontological  objection  to  evolution 
was  given  in  a  chapter  of  his  book  the  title  of  which 
has  now  become  classic — "The  Imperfection  of  the 
Geological  Record."f  By  that  phrase  he  meant  that 
the  fossils  which  have  been  collected  and  preserved  in 
museums  are  not,  as  is  vaguely  supposed  by  those  who 

*  The  seven  sub-kingdoms  represented  are  Porifera,  Coelenterata,  Mollusco- 
ida,  Echinodermata,  Annulata,  Arthropoda,  Mollusca.  The  classes  represented 
are  Porifera,  Hydrozoa,  Actinozoa,  Brachiopoda,  Asteroidea,  Crinoidea,  Cy- 
stoidea,  Chaetopoda,  Crustacea,  Trilobita,  Arachnida,  Pelecypoda,  Gastropoda, 
Cephalopoda.  All  these  groups  except  the  Asteroidea,  Crinoidea,  Araclinida, 
and  Cephalopoda,  were  represented  in  the  Georgian,  the  lowest  of  the  three 
divisions  of  the  Cambrian.  The  absence  of  the  sub-kingdom  Protozoa  and 
class  Rhizopoda  from  this  list  is  remarkable.  On  a  priori  grounds,  it  would 
seem  highly  probable  that  they  were  in  existence,  but  their  existence  has  not 
yet  been  proved  by  the  evidence  of  well-characterized  fossils.  In  this  state- 
ment I  have  followed  the  classification  of  Parker  and  Haswell,  sincetheir  ex- 
cellent text-book  is  widely  accepted  as  a  standard,  though  I  do  not  in  all 
respects  agree  with  the  views  of  which  the  classification  is  the  expression. 

t  Ch.  ix  in  the  earlier  editions,  ch.  x  in  the  later  editions. 

202 


Imperfection  of  the  Geological  Record 

have  never  studied  the  subject,  an  approximately  com- 
plete representation  of  the  faunas  and  floras  of  the 
past,  but  are  in  fact  only  an  infinitesimal  remnant  of 
those  faunas  and  floras.  The  sentence  in  which  Dar- 
win sums  up  his  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  imperfec- 
tion of  the  geological  record  is  worth  quoting  entire : — 
"I  look  at  the  natural  geological  record  as  a  history  of 
the  world  imperfectly  kept,  and  written  in  a  changing 
dialect.  Of  this  history  we  possess  the  last  volume 
alone,  relating  only  to  two  or  three  countries.  Of  this 
volume  only  here  and  there  a  short  chapter  has  been 
preserved,  and  of  each  page  only  here  and  there  a  few 
lines."  I  believe  that  this  sentence  is  no  exaggeration;, 
that,  in  fact,  it  hardly  does  justice  to  the  extreme  in- 
completeness of  that  record  of  past  life  which  is  af- 
forded us  by  fossils. 

A  striking  testimony  to  the  imperfection  of  the  geo- 
logical record  is  borne  by  the  fact  that  multitudes  of 
fossil  species  are  known  only  by  single  specimens.  Of 
course  we  must  suppose  that  every  species  that  evef 
existed  included  many  millions  of  individuals;  and, 
if  an  extinct  species  is  now  represented  in  our  col- 
lections only  by  a  single  specimen,  the  fact  shows  at 
once  that  our  collections  of  fossils  are  but  an  infini- 
tesimal remnant  of  the  life  that  has  existed.  But  not 
only  is  it  often  the  case  that  a  species  is  represented  by 
only  a  single  specimen ;  oftentimes,  in  some  particular 
formation,  a  whole  order,  or  even  a  whole  class,  may 
be  represented  by  a  very  small  number  of  specimens. 
In  the  Jurassic  era  in  Europe,  the  class  of  birds  is 

203 


The  Origin  of  Species 

represented  by  two  somewhat  imperfect  skeletons  and 
one  odd  feather.  The  same  class  is  represented  in  the 
Jurassic  of  North  America  by  a  single  fragment  of  a 
skull.  The  class  of  mammals  in  the  Triassic  of  North 
America  is  represented  by  two  lower  jaws.  In  the 
Subcarboniferous  formation  of  Germany  has  been  dis- 
covered a  single  tolerably  well  preserved  specimen  of 
a  small  creature  which  has  been  named  Bostrichopiis 
antiqutis.  The  creature  appears  to  have  been  an  ar- 
thropod, yet  it  is  so  extremely  different  from  any  other 
known  animal  that  we  cannot  with  any  confidence  place 
it  in  any  of  the  recognized  classes  of  arthropods.  Of 
course  we  must  believe  that  the  species  to  which  this 
remarkable  relic  belongs  was  represented  by  multitudes 
of  individuals,  and  it  is  likewise  altogether  probable 
that  there  must  have  been  some  considerable  number 
of  more  or  less  closely  allied  species.  It  is  exceedingly 
improbable  that  a  single  aberrant  species  should  have 
existed  in  absolute  isolation. 

The  instances  above  given  are  illustrations  of  the 
fact  of  the  imperfection  of  the  geological  record.  A 
little  reflection  will  show  that,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  the  geological  record  must  necessarily  be  very 
imperfect.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  biological  con- 
ditions which  render  an  approximate  completeness  of 
the  geological  record  impossible.  That  an  individual 
organism  should  be  preserved  in  fossil  condition,  it  is 
necessary  in  general  that  it  should  be  buried  by  sedi- 
mentary accumulations  formed  under  water  before  its 
material  has  been  completely  decomposed  or  dissolved. 
^  204 


The  Cambrian  Fauna 

It  is  obvious  that  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  plants 
and  animals  die  under  such  conditions  that  their  preser- 
vation as  fossils  is  absolutely  impossible.  It  is  evident 
that  the  chances  of  fossilization  are  much  greater,  other 
things  being  equal,  in  the  case  of  a  marine  organism 
than  in  the  case  of  a  terrestrial  organism;  and  it  is 
a  fact  that  in  all  formations,  even  the  latest,  our  record 
of  the  history  of  terrestrial  organisms  is  scanty  indeed. 
Again,  it  is  true,  in  general,  that  only  the  hard  parts 
or  skeletons  of  organisms  can  be  preserved.  Hence 
those  groups  of  plants  which  contain  little  or  no  woody 
fiber  in  their  tissues,  and  those  groups  of  animals  which 
are  destitute  of  shells,  bones,  teeth,  or  other  consider- 
ably indurated  skeletal  structures,  have  scarcely  any 
chance  of  preservation  as  fossils.  This  consideration 
obviously  renders  it  impossible  that  we  should  have 
anything  approaching  a  complete  representation  of  the 
genealogy  of  either  animals  or  plants.  The  mystery 
of  the  Cam.brian  fauna,  as  has  been  suggested  by  Mr. 
Charles  Morris*  and  by  Professor  Brooks  of  Johns 
Hopkins  University,f  probably  admits  of  at  least  par- 
tial explanation  in  the  line  of  the  principle  just  stated. 
It  is  a  fact  well  known  to  zoologists  that  almost  every 
important  group  of  marine  invertebrates,  though  the 
animals  in  their  adult  condition  may  be  of  large  size, 
and  have  heavy  skeletons,  and  live  at  the  bottom  of  the 
sea,  is  characterized  by  a  form  of  larva  which  is  minute 
and  destitute  of  skeleton,  and  which  swims  freely  at  or 

*  Life  before  Fossils,  in  American  Naturalist^  vol.  xxx,  pp.  i88,  279. 
•f  The  Origin  of  the  Oldest  Fossils  and  the  Discovery  of  the  Bottom  of  the 
Ocean,  xn  Journal  of  Geology,  vol.  ii,  p.  455.  -^ 

205 


The  Origin  of  Species 

near  the  surface  of  the  sea.  According  to  the  principle 
which  has  been  already  referred  to,*  that  larval  and 
immature  forms  of  animals  are  likely  to  resemble  more 
or  less  closely  the  ancestors  whence  those  animals  have 
been  derived,  it  is  argued  with  great  force  that  the 
earliest  ancestors  of  each  of  these  groups  of  marine 
animals  must  have  been  characterized  by  minute  size, 
the  lack  of  any  considerable  skeletal  development,  and 
a  free-swimming  life  at  the  surface  of  the  water.  Such 
forms  could  obviously  not  be  preserved  as  fossils.  In 
accordance  with  this  reasoning,  we  may  Qonclude  that 
the  probable  cause  of  the  absence  of  any  fossils  repre- 
senting the  ancestors  of  the  Cambrian  fauna  is  that 
those  ancestors  were  incapable  of  being  preserved  as 
fossils.  The  fossil  record  of  marine  life  commences 
only  at  that  stage  of  evolution  in  which  some  groups 
of  organisms  had  already  developed  skeletons  of  con- 
siderable weight  and  hardness,  and  had  already  ex- 
changed their  free-swimming  life  at  the  surface  for  a 
more  sluggish  life  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea. 

There  are  also  geological  conditions  which  render 
impossible  a  complete  record  of  the  life  of  past  ages. 
Many  of  the  sedimentary  rocks  are  altogether  unsuited 
to  the  preservation  of  fossils.  Coarse-grained  sedi- 
ments, as  sands  and  gravels,  are  so  porous  that  any 
shells  or  other  remains  of  living  things  which  they 
enclose  are  likely  to  be  dissolved  out ;  and  the  irregular 
surfaces  of  such  deposits  are  incapable  of  preserving 
any   delicate    impressions.      Recognizable    fossils    are 

*  Page  183. 

206 


Erosion  and  Metamorphism 

chiefly  found  in  the  fine-grained  shales,  which  are 
formed  by  the  consoHdation  of  mud  beds,  and  in  the 
h'mestones,  which  result  from  the  accumulation  of 
debris  of  shells  and  corals  and  other  marine  skeletons. 
But,  after  a  record  has  been  actually  formed  in  fossil- 
iferous  strata,  it  is  liable  to  obliteration.  Whole  series 
of  strata  may  in  places  be  disintegrated  and  destroyed 
by  the  agencies  of  the  atmosphere  and  water.  The 
large  areas  of  the  earth's  surface  occupied  by  plutonic 
and  metamorphic  rocks  bear  unmistakable  testimony 
to  the  fact  of  enormous  denudation,  since  such  rocks 
could  only  have  assumed  their  characteristic  structure 
under  the  pressure  of  hundreds  or  thousands  of  feet 
of  superincumbent  rock.  Other  fossiliferous  rocks 
may  have  had  their  fossils  entirely  obliterated  by  meta- 
morphism; and  still  other  fossiliferous  deposits  are 
now  covered  by  the  sea  or  buried  beneath  superincum- 
bent strata,  where  they  will  probably  never  be  acces- 
sible to  human  investigation. 

It  is,  moreover,  probable  that  not  only  species,  but 
genera  and  even  more  comprehensive  groups,  may 
have  been  in  their  origin  confined  to  limited  areas.  If 
there  were  in  process  of  formation  in  some  particular 
locality,  at  a  particular  time,  no  fossiliferous  rocks 
which  have  been  preserved,  and  which  are  now  acces- 
sible to  geological  study,  there  would  be  no  record  of 
the  early  stages  of  existence  of  a  group  of  organisms 
originating  then  and  there.  The  earliest  accessible 
record  of  such  a  group  might  be  made  after  they  had 
already  become  widely  diffused  and  had  become  dif- 

207 


The  Origin  of  Species 

ferentiated  into  a  considerable  number  of  species.  In 
this  way  may  be  explained  the  frequent  occurrence 
in  geological  history  of  groups  already  represented  by 
a  considerable  number  of  species,  of  whose  ancestry  no 
record  appears. 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out*  that  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  process  of  evolution  has  gone 
on  with  equal  rapidity  through  all  geological  time.  On 
the  contrary,  since  the  condition  of  the  evolution  of 
new  species  is  the  lack  of  harmony  between  existing 
species  and  their  environment,  it  must  be  supposed  that 
rapid  evolutionary  changes  take  place,  for  the  most 
part,  only  in  times  of  rapid  geographical  change.  In 
the  light  of  this  consideration,  we  recognize  the  pro- 
found significance  of  the  fact  which  has  already  been 
referred  to,f  in  discussing  the  doctrines  of  catastro- 
phism  and  uniformitarianism  in  geology,  that  the  most 
abrupt  changes  in  fossil  faunas  and  floras  usually  occur 
at  just  those  points  where  the  series  of  sediments  is 
interrupted  by  unconformability.  As  has  been  already 
explained,  the  meaning  of  unconformability  is  that  a 
region  where  strata  have  been  in  process  of  deposition 
is  carried  above  the  water  level  by  crustal  movement, 
and  for  a  greater  or  less  period  of  time  exposed  to 
erosion.  A  later  crustal  movement  depresses  the  re- 
gion again  below  the  water  level,  and  the  process  of 
deposit  of  sedimentary  strata  is  resumed.  The  whole 
interval  of  time  in  which  elevation,  erosion,  and  sub- 
sidence have  taken  place  is  left  unrecorded.     It  will 

*  Page  174.  t  Pages  52,  155. 

208 


Significance  of  Unconformability 

be  noticed  that  the  case  is  not  merely  that  a  period 
of  time  of  greater  or  less  length  is  left  unrecorded.  It 
is  a  period  of  time  in  which  extensive  geographical 
changes  have  been  in  progress,  and  in  which,  there- 
fore, the  processes  of  evolution  have  doubtless  been 
going  on  with  exceptional  rapidity.  It  is  precisely  at 
the  critical  epochs  of  most  rapid  change  that  the  geo- 
logical record  generally  fails  us.  Darwin's  figurative 
suggestion*  of  the  historical  volume,  most  of  whose 
leaves  have  been  torn  out,  may  well  admit  of  amplifica- 
tion. The  chapters  that  have  been  torn  out  are  pre- 
cisely those  which  should  record  the  most  critical 
events,  the  most  rapid  changes.  The  natural  geolog- 
ical record  is  much  like  a  history  of  the  United  States 
in  which  the  chapters  on  the  Revolution  and  the  Civil 
War  have  been  torn  out. 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations,  it  can  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  Darwin's  principle  of  the  imperfection  of 
the  geological  record  is  an  amply  sufficient  answer  to 
that  objection  to  the  theory  of  evolution  which  is 
based  upon  the  absence  of  series  of  finely  gradational 
forms  between  species  and  between  more  comprehen- 
sive groups  in  geological  history. 

We  have  thus  far  discussed  none  of  the  supposed 
agencies  of  evolutionary  change  excepting  the  Dar- 
winian principle  of  natural  selection.  That  principle  is 
obviously  independent  of  any  theory  as  to  the  cause 
of  variation  in  general,  or  as  to  the  cause  of  variation 
in  any  particular  direction.     The  theory  of  natural  se- 

*  Quoted  on  page  203. 
209 


The  Origin  of  Species 

lection  simply  recognizes  the  unquestionable  fact  that 
variations  continually  occur,  no  two  individuals  being 
exactly  alike.  Darwin  spoke  of  variation  as  fortuitous. 
The  expression  was  an  unfortunate  one,  since  people 
who  did  not  understand  his  real  meaning  charged  him 
with  representing  that  variations  occurred  by  chance. 
It  is  needless  to  say  that  Darwin  had  no  such  meaning. 
By  fortuitous  variation  Darwin  only  meant  variation 
whose  causes  are  so  completely  unknown  that  we  can 
see  no  reason  why  it  should  be  any  more  likely  to  be 
in  one  direction  than  in  another.  It  would  have  been 
better  if  he  had  said  indefinite,  or  indeterminate,  varia- 
tion, instead  of  fortuitous  variation.  But,  while  the 
theory  of  natural  selection  does  not  itself  postulate  any 
cause  of  variation  in  any  particular  direction,  it  is  yet 
entirely  consistent  with  the  belief  that  there  may  be 
known  or  unknown  causes  tending  to  produce  varia- 
tions in  a  particular  direction.  There  may  be,  then, 
definite,  or  determinate  variation.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
evolution  of  new  species  would  be  aided  by  any  causes 
tending  to  produce  determinate  variation  in  desirable 
directions.  Natural  selection  would  in  that  case  have 
better  material  to  work  upon,  and  would  therefore 
more  readily  produce  the  result. 

Several  supposed  causes  of  determinate  variation 
have  been  suggested.  Some  of  the  Greek  philosophers, 
who  indulged  in  crude  and  vague  evolutionary  specula- 
tions, assumed  the  existence  in  all  organisms  of  an 
innate  tendency  to  improvement,  the  result  of  which 
would  be  a  continuous  progress  from  lower  to  higher 

2IO 


Indeterminate  or  Determinate  Variation 

forms  of  organization.  Innate  tendencies,  however, 
are  not  looked  upon  with  as  much  favor  in  the  philos- 
ophy of  to-day  as  in  that  of  two  thousand  years  ago; 
and  a  suggestion  so  vague  and  so  incapable  of  verifica- 
tion is  of  no  value  as  a  scientific  hypothesis.  There 
are,  however,  two  supposed  causes  of  determinate  va- 
riation which  are  worthy  of  serious  consideration.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  direct  effect  of  the  environment. 
This  w^as  urged  as  the  main  cause  of  evolutionary 
change  by  some  of  the  early  French  evolutionists, 
notably  by  Buffon  in  the  eighteenth  century,  and  by 
Etienne  Geoffroy  Saint  Hilaire  in  the  early  part  of 
the  nineteenth  century.  Differences  in  climate,  food, 
and  other  conditions  of  life  appear  to  produce,  in  many 
cases,  during  the  life  of  the  individual,  conspicuous 
differences,  in  man  himself  and  in  domestic  animals 
and  cultivated  plants.  The  importance  of  these  direct 
effects  of  environment  has  been  greatly  exaggerated 
by  some  writers ;  but  the  effects  are  real,  and  especially 
important  in  the  case  of  plants.  Buffon,  Saint  Hilaire, 
and  others,  recognizing  the  fact  of  the  changes  thus 
produced  in  the  lifetime  of  the  individual  by  the  action 
of  the  environment,  assumed  that  the  effects  of  those 
changes  would  be  in  greater  or  less  degree  inherited 
by  the  offspring. 

Lamarck  claimed  that  the  most  important  factor  in 
the  evolution  of  animals  is  not  the  direct  effect  of 
environment,  but  the  indirect  effect.  The  environment 
compels  the  individual  to  adopt  certain  habits  and 
modes  of  life,  and  those  habits  produce  in  time  perma- 

211 


The  Origin  of  Species 

nent  changes  in  the  organism.  Lamarck  held  that 
these  indirect  effects  of  environment  are  capable  of 
being  inherited,  and  can  therefore  be  accumulated  from 
generation  to  generation.  He  explained  the  long  neck 
of  the  giraffe  by  assuming  that  the  ancestors  of  the 
giraffe,  living  for  generation  after  generation  in  a  re- 
gion where  grass  was  scarce,  and  subsistence  could  be 
obtained  only  by  browsing  on  the  leaves  of  trees,  had 
continually  stretched  their  necks  in  thus  seeking  their 
food ;  and  that  the  effect  of  the  habit,  after  many  gen- 
erations, had  been  a  change  from  a  primitive  form, 
which  may  have  been  not  unlike  that  of  an  antelope, 
to  the  present  form  of  the  giraffe.  One  phase  of  the 
Lamarckian  doctrine  which  is  especially  important  is 
the  effect  of  use  and  disuse.  Every  one  knows  that,  in 
general,  those  organs  that  are  much  used  tend  to  in- 
crease in  size  and  in  perfection  of  development.  The 
arm  of  a  blacksmith  is  a  very  different  organ  from  that 
of  a  sedentary  student,  and  the  brain  of  the  scholar  is 
a  far  better  organ  than  that  of  a  man  who  has  never 
developed  an  idea  beyond  the  simple  manual  labor 
which  secures  his  daily  food.  The  special  doctrine  of 
Lamarck  as  to  the  indirect  effect  of  environment  upon 
organization  by  means  of  habit  can,  of  course,  apply 
only  to  the  animal  kingdom.  Lamarck's  theory  of 
the  evolution  of  plants  was  essentially  the  same  as 
that  of  Saint  Hilaire  and  Buffon.  The  chief  agency 
was  supposed  to  be  the  direct  influence  of  the 
environment. 

Both  Saint  Hilaire's  principle  of  the  direct  effect 

212 


Three  Schools  of  Evolutionists 

of  environment  and  Lamarck's  principle  of  the  in- 
direct effect  of  environment  require  the  belief  that 
characters  acquired  during  the  life  of  the  individ- 
ual are  capable  of  being  inherited.  The  question 
of  the  truth  of  this  assumption  will  be  considered 
presently. 

In  regard  to  the  validity  of  the  factors  of  evolution 
assumed  by  Saint  Hilaire  and  Lamarck,  evolutionists 
since  Darwin  have  been  divided  somewhat  definitely 
into  three  schools.  Darwin  himself,  though  maintain- 
ing that  his  own  principle  of  natural  selection  was  by 
far  the  most  important  factor  in  the  evolution  of  new 
species,  believed  in  the  validity  of  both  the  direct  and 
the  indirect  effects  of  environment,  as  assumed  by 
Saint  Hilaire  and  Lamarck;  and  those  evolutionists 
who  in  this  respect  adhere  to  Darwin's  views  may  rea- 
sonably call  themselves  Darwinians.  From  this  posi- 
tion of  Darwin  a  departure  has  been  made  in  two 
different  directions.  The  Neo-Lamarckian  school  be- 
lieve the  direct,  and  especially  the  indirect,  effect  of 
the  environment  to  be  very  much  more  important  than 
Darwin  supposed,  while  they  relegate  natural  selection 
to  a  comparatively  subordinate  position  among  the 
agencies  of  evolution.  In  their  thought,  natural  selec- 
tion preserves  the  fittest,  but  the  origin  of  the  fittest 
is  to  be  found  in  the  operation  of  the  Lamarckian  fac- 
tors. On  the  other  hand,  the  Ultra-Darwinian,  Neo- 
Darwinian,  or  Weismannian,  school  utterly  repudiate 
both  the  direct  and  the  indirect  effect  of  environment, 
holding  that  variation  is  absolutely  indeterminate,  and 

213 


The  Origin  of  Species 

that  natural  selection  is  the  sole  agency  in  evolution.* 
I  believe  that  the  departure  in  each  of  these  opposite 
directions  from  the  position  of  Darwin  is  in  the  direc- 
tion of  error.  I  believe  that  Darwin  was  right  both  in 
maintaining  the  paramount  importance  of  natural  se- 
lection, and  in  conceding  the  validity,  within  limits, 
of  the  factors  of  evolution  asserted  by  Saint  Hilaire 
and  Lamarck. 

As  has  been  remarked,  the  evolutionary  theories  of 
Saint  Hilaire  and  Lamarck  involve  as  an  essential  con- 
dition the  inheritance  of  characters  acquired  during 
the  lifetime  of  the  individual.  Unless  that  postulate  is 
granted,  the  effect  of  the  environment,  direct  or  indi- 
rect, ceases  with  the  individual  life,  and  no  tendency 
to  determinate  variation  can  arise  therefrom.  Until 
recently  it  has  generally  been  taken  for  granted,  alike 
by  scientists  and  by  the  general  public,  that  acquired 
characters  are  capable,  at  least  in  some  degree,  of  being 
inherited.  But,  when  the  question  comes  to  be  se- 
riously considered,  it  becomes  obvious  that  the  evidence 
of  such  inheritance  is  far  less  conclusive  than  has  gen- 
erally been  supposed. 

Perhaps  the  strongest  evidence  of  the  inheritance  of 
acquired  variations  is  seen  in  the  hereditary  instincts 
of  domestic  animals.  The  condition  of  tameness  ap- 
pears to  be  hereditary.  The  offspring  of  our  domestic 
animals  appear  to  have  inherited  that  condition  of  the 

*  Cope,  Origin  of  the  Fittest^  and  Weismann,  Essays  upon  Heredity  and 
Kindred  Biological  Problems,  may  be  referred  to  as  representative  of  the  ex- 
treme views.  For  a  convenient  summary  of  the  various  recent  discussions  on 
evolution,  see  Conn,  Method  of  Evolution. 

214 


Inheritance  of  Acquired  Characters 

nervous  system  which  in  their  ancestors  was  the  result 
of  habits  of  association  with  man.  The  more  specific 
instincts  developed  in  certain  breeds  of  domestic  ani- 
mals afford  an  indication  in  the  same  direction.  It  has 
been  repeatedly  observed  that  young  pointers  of  pure 
blood  are  apt  to  assume  the  characteristic  attitude  of 
pointing  when  first  taken  into  the  field.  It  is  difficult 
to  understand  the  fact  except  on  the  supposition  that 
a  habit  which  was  originally  the  result  of  training 
has  produced  in  the  ancestors  of  these  dogs  a  heritable 
modification  of  the  nervous  system  by  which  the  ac- 
quired habit  has  become  a  hereditary  instinct. 

It  seems  probable  also  that  some  of  the  instincts  of 
wild  animals  may  best  be  explained  in  like  manner,  as 
held  by  Darwin,  Romanes,  and  others,  by  the  supposi- 
tion of  the  inheritance  of  habits  formed  primarily  by 
intelligent  response  to  the  conditions  of  the  environ- 
ment. The  phrase,  "lapsed  intelligence,"  first  used 
by  Lewes,*  felicitously  expresses  the  psychological 
condition  involved  in  such  "inherited  habits."  There 
are,  however,  some  instincts  for  which  this  explanation 
is  certainly  Inadmissible.  The  origin  of  instincts  Is 
confessedly  a  difficult  problem;  and,  while  the  facts 
afford  some  evidence  In  favor  of  the  Inheritance  of 
acquired  characters,  the  evidence  Is  certainly  not 
conclusive,  f 

There  are  multitudes  of  supposed  instances  of  In- 

*  Problems  of  Life  and  Mind. 

f  On  the  evolution  of  instincts,  see  Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  ch.  vii  in  the 
earh'er  editions,  ch,  viii  in  the  later  editions  ;  Romanes,  Mental  Evolution  in 
Animals;  ^orgaxi,  Animal  Li/e  and  Intelligence;  Morgan,  Habit  and  Instinct. 

215 


The  Origin  of  Species 

heritance  of  acquired  characters  in  human  life,  which, 
when  examined,  are  found  to  be  very  uncertain.  It  is 
a  famihar  fact  that  there  are  families  of  drunkards, 
families  of  criminals,  families  of  musicians,  families  of 
statesmen,  families  of  scientists.  In  all  these  cases  it 
is  often  hastily  assumed  that  the  habits  of  life  of  the 
parent  produce  modifications  of  the  nervous  system 
which  are  inherited.  The  inference,  however,  is  seen 
to  be  uncertain  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
granted  that  the  character  of  the  offspring  in  these 
cases  has  been  largely  controlled  by  heredity,  it  is  alto- 
gether uncertain  whether  the  child  inherits  the  effects 
/of  the  parent's  habits,  or  inherits  only  the  congenital 
I  tendencies  which  led  the  parent  into  the  formation  of 
Vj^ose  habits.  In  the  case  of  hereditary  drunkenness,  it 
can  never  be  decided  whether  the  child  inherits  a  con- 
dition which  is  the  result  of  the  father's  habit  of  drunk- 
enness, or  inherits  only  that  nervous  weakness  or 
abnormality  which  existed  congenitally  in  the  father 
and  which  made  him  an  easy  prey  to  temptation.  The 
other  element  of  uncertainty,  in  all  these  cases  of  ap- 
parent inheritance  of  marked  peculiarities  in  the  human 
species,  lies  in  the  impossibility  of  distinguishing  how 
much  of  the  character  of  the  offspring  is  due  to  hered- 
ity and  how  much  to  environment.  In  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  cases,  the  parents  of  a  child  have  the  largest 
share  in  the  shaping  of  his  environment.  They  are 
his  first  and  chief  teachers  In  that  process  of  conscious 
and  unconscious  education  by  which  his  life  and  char- 
acter are  largely  formed.     Their  example  is  the  one 

216 


Weismann's  Theory  of  Heredity 

which  he  naturally  follows,  even  when  the  following 
of  their  example  is  not  sedulously  inculcated  as  a  duty. 
The  only  cases  in  which  it  is  practicable  to  discriminate 
between  the  effects  of  heredity  and  those  of  environ- 
ment, are  the  exceptional  cases  of  orphans  and  others 
who  are  reared  under  the  dominant  influence  of  other 
persons  than  their  parents.  The  success  which  has 
been  attained  in  many  orphan  asylums  and  similar  in- 
stitutions, in  developing  into  very  respectable  men  and 
women  children  whose  ancestry  was  the  worst  possible, 
is  eminently  suggestive  of  the  idea  that,  in  general, 
environment  is  a  weightier  factor  than  heredity  in 
shaping  the  lives  and  characters  of  human  beings. 

In  recent  years  Weismann  and  his  followers  have 
denied  on  theoretical  grounds  the  possibility  of  the  in- 
heritance of  acquired  characters  in  any  degree  what- 
ever.* According  to  Weismann's  theory  of  heredity,^ 
there  is  in  each  individual  organism  a  complete  physio- 
logical isolation  of  the  portion  of  the  body  whose  func- 
tion is  to  reproduce  the  species  from  the  portion  of  the 
body  which  carries  on  the  activities  of  the  life  of  the 
individual.  In  every  ovum  there  is  a  certain  portion 
of  material  which  is  destined  to  develop  into  the  va- 
rious organs  by  which  the  life  of  the  individual  is  to 
be  maintained  and  its  activities  to  be  exercised.  That 
portion  of  the  substance  of  the  egg  is  called  the  soma- 
toplasm. Another  portion  of  the  substance  of  the 
ovum  is  destined  to  have  no  share  in  the  activities  of 

*  Weismann,  Essays  upon  Heredity.  Weismann's  views  are  trenchantly 
criticized  by  Romanes,  Examination  of  Weismannism ;  also  Darwin  an4 
A/ter  Darwin^  vol.  ii, 

217 


The  Origin  of  Species 

the  life  of  the  individual,  but  is  simply  stored  up  for 
the  production  of  future  generations.  It  is,  in  other 
words,  to  constitute  the  reproductive  products.  That 
portion  of  the  ovum  is  called  the  germ-plasm.  Accord- 
ing to  Weismann's  theory,  through  all  the  life  of  the 
individual,  the  somatoplasm  and  the  germ-plasm  are 
so  completely  independent  of  each  other  that  the 
changes  wrought  in  the  somatoplasm  by  the  direct  and 
indirect  effects  of  the  environment  can  have  no  tend- 
ency to  induce  corresponding  changes  in  the  germ- 
plasm,  and  therefore  cannot  reproduce  themselves  in 
the  offspring.  According  to  this  theory  of  inheritance, 
the  offspring  can  inherit  only  what  was  congenital  in 
the  parent,  for  only  the  congenital  characters  of  the 
parent  can  find  expression  in  the  germ-plasm.  It  is 
impossible  here  to  enter  at  length  into  the  discussion  of 
Weismann's  theory.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it  does  not 
seem  probable  that  there  can  be  that  complete  physio- 
logical isolation  of  somatoplasm  and  germ-plasm  which 
Weismann's  theory  assumes.  It  is  indeed  true  that  in 
most  animals  the  reproductive  organs  and  products  are 
anatomically  differentiated  from  the  rest  of  the  body 
at  a  pretty  early  stage  in  embryonic  life.  In  plants, 
however,  the  case  is  very  different.  The  reproductive 
organs  and  products  are  usually  not  anatomically  dif- 
ferentiated until  a  relatively  late  period  in  the  life  of 
the  organism.  But  even  in  animals,  in  which  the  re- 
productive products  are  very  early  differentiated  an- 
atomically, it  seems  highly  improbable  that  they  can 
be  so  completely  isolated  physiologically  from  the  rest 

2i8 


Botanical  Experiments 

of  the  organism  in  which  they  Hve,  and  by  which  they 
are  nourished,  as  not  to  be  affected  in  any  definite  way 
by  the  modifications  which  that  organism  experiences. 
It  appears,  on  the  whole,  probable  that  acquired 
variations  are  capable  in  some  degree  of  being  inher- 
ited, though  probably  in  far  less  degree  than  Saint 
Hilaire  and  Lamarck  supposed,  and  in  less  degree  even 
than  Darwin  conceded.  The  line  of  investigation  that 
seems  most  likely,  in  the  near  future,  to  yield  some- 
what definite  information  in  regard  to  the  degree  in 
which  acquired  variations  are  capable  of  being  inher- 
ited, is  the  cultivation  of  plants  under  an  environment 
different  from  the  ordinary  environment  of  the  species. 
In  many  respects  experiments  on  plants  are  more  easily 
carried  out  than  experiments  on  animals.  It  is  well 
known  that  many  plants,  when  cultivated  in  an  envi- 
ronment very  different  from  that  of  the  parents  (as, 
for  instance,  when  plants  which  normally  grow  in  the 
interior  of  a  continent  are  cultivated  on  the  seashore), 
exhibit  strongly  marked  peculiarities  in  foliage  and  in 
other  respects.  If  acquired  characters  are  capable  in 
any  degree  of  being  inherited,  it  ought  to  follow  that, 
when  the  plants  have  been  exposed  for  a  number  of 
years  to  the  changed  environment,  their  seeds,  if 
planted  in  the  normal  environment  of  the  species, 
would  produce  plants  which  would  exhibit  in  some 
degree  the  characters  which  their  parents  had  ac- 
quired in  the  abnormal  environment.  It  would  seem 
that  a  series  of  experiments  of  this  sort,  involving  a 
considerable  number  of  species  of  plants,  and  continued 

219 


y 


The  Origin  of  Species 

for  some  considerable  term  of  years,  might  yield  some- 
v/hat  definite  results  in  regard  to  the  degree  in  which 
acquired  variations  are  inherited. 

It  must  be  noticed  that  an  element  of  uncertainty 
has  been  shown  to  exist  in  all  the  supposed  evidences 
of  inheritance  of  acquired  variations,  by  reason  of  the 
principle  not  very  felicitously  named  "organic  selec- 
tion," whose  discovery  has  been  independently  an- 
nounced by  Professor  J.  M.  Baldwin,*  of  Princeton, 
Professor  Henry  F.  Osborn,  of  Columbia  University, 
and  Professor  C.  Lloyd  Morgan,  of  Bristol,  England. 
Let  us  suppose  that  some  geographical  movement  or 
other  change  has  thrown  the  character  of  a  species 

rout  of  harmony  with  its  environment.    Those  individ- 
uals of  the  species  whose  physical  or  psychical  consti- 
tution is  sufficiently  plastic,  will  respond  to  the  change 
*    in  environment  by  changes  directly  effected  in  the  or- 
ganism, or  by  changes  of  habit  and  consequent  changes 
in  the  organism.  In  other  words,  the  plastic  individuals 
will  experience  adaptive  modifications  in  one  or  both 
of  the  methods  asserted  respectively  by  Saint  Plilaire 
and  Buffon.     Natural  selection  will  then  operate  to 
preserve  the  individuals  thus  adaptively  modified,  and 
^=:^  destroy  the  unmodified  individuals.     These  modifi- 
Pcations,  indeed,  according  to  the  Weismannian  doc- 
trine, can  be  in  no  degree  inherited.     Nevertheless,  in 
the  second  generation,  and  in  every  subsequent  genera- 

*  Baldwin,  Development  and  Evolution.  In  this  work  Professor  Baldwin's 
original  papers  are  republished ;  and.  in  the  Appendix,  copious  extracts  are 
given  from  the  writings  of  Professors  Osborn  and  Morgan  and  others  who  have 
treated  the  subject  of  organic  selection. 

220 


I 


Organic  Selection 

tion  under  the  new  environment,  the  same  adaptive 
modifications  will  be  produced  in  the  individuals  suffi- 
ciently plastic,  and  in  each  generation  natural  selection 
will  tend  to  preserve  the  individuals  thus  modified.  Oni 
the  supposition  that  congenital  variations  are  abso- 
lutely indeterminate,  it  may  be  expected  that  in  process ; 
of  time  there  will  appear  congenital  variations  in  the' 
same  direction  as  the  adaptive  modifications.  Then,  and 
not  tiir  then,  according  to  the  Weismannians,  can  the 
new  characters  be  transmitted  by  inheritance.  But  in 
the  meantime  the  race  will  have  been  preserved  from 
extinction,  under  the  changed  environment,  by  adaptive 
modifications  effected  in  each  generation.  It  thus  ap- 
pears that  the  persistence,  for  an  indefinite  series  of 
generations,  of  characters  such  as  are  produced  in  the 
individual  by  the  direct  or  indirect  action  of  the  en- 
vironment, is  not  conclusive  proof  of  the  inheritance  of 
acquired  modifications.  There  seems  no  doubt  that 
the  principle  of  organic  selection  is  sound,  though  there 
is  much  uncertainty  in  regard  to  the  importance  of  its 
effects.  It  has  been  claimed  by  Professors  Baldwin 
and  Morgan  to  be  especially  valuable  in  accounting 
for  the  development  of  instincts.  The  theory  of  or- 
ganic selection  has  been  spoken  of  as  a  compromise  be- 
tween the  Neo-Lamarckian  and  the  Ultra-Darwinian 
school.  A  compromise  in  some  sense  it  certainly  is, 
but  a  compromise  in  which  the  Neo-Lamarckians  sur- 
render far  more  than  their  adversaries.  The  concep- 
tion of  evolution  from  the  standpoint  of  organic  selec- 
tion  is   superficially   Lamarckian   but   fundamentally 

221 


The  Origin  of  Species 

Darwinian.  It  is  Lamarckian  in  asserting  the  impor- 
tance of  adaptive  modifications  effected  by  the  action 
of  the  environment  in  the  hfe  of  the  individual,  and 
especially  in  asserting  the  importance  of  the  conscious 
activity  of  the  individual ;  but  it  is  essentially  Dar- 
winian or  Weismannian  in  making  the  evolution  of 
new  species  depend  upon  the  preservation  of  indeter- 
minate variations  by  natural  selection. 

Laying  aside  for  the  present  the  supposition  of  de- 
terminate variation,  we  may  consider  the  question 
whether  natural  selection  would  be  adequate  to  develop 
a  new  species  by  means  of  purely  indeterminate  varia- 
tions. Some  strong  objections  have  been  alleged  to  the 
adequacy  of  natural  selection  in  the  absence  of  deter- 
minate variation.* 

A  plausible  objection  to  the  adequacy  of  natural  se- 
lection is  found  in  the  fact  that  in  many  cases  specific 
characters  give  their  possessors  no  obvious  advantage 
in  the  struggle  for  life.  It  is,  indeed,  perfectly  intelli- 
gible that  the  white  fur  of  the  polar  bear  gives  the 
creature  a  far  better  chance  of  survival  in  its  environ- 
ment than  it  would  have  if  it  were  as  dark  as  its  con- 
gener, the  black  bear.  But  in  multitudes  of  cases  it  is 
impossible  to  discover  any  utility  in  the  particular  color 
pattern  and  other  details  of  ornamentation  which  char- 
acterize a  particular  species.  On  the  other  hand  it  may 
be  answered,  so  imperfect  is  our  knowledge  of  the 
delicate  adjustments  of  organic  nature,  that  he  would 
be  a  rash  man  who  should  deny  the  possibility  of  some 

*  Mivart,  Genesis  of  Species. 
222 


Utility  of  Specific  Characters 

real  utility  in  characters  apparently  so  trivial  as  a 
white  bar  on  a  bird's  wing  or  a  pair  of  white  feathers 
in  its  tail,  and  still  more  rash  would  he  be  who  should 
deny  the  possibility  that  such  characters  might  be  cor- 
related with  other  characters  of  great  utility.  But  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  appeal  to  ignorance,  though 
sometimes  reasonable  and  necessary,  is  not  a  very  satis- 
factory argument.  In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to 
remark  that  there  has  been  a  good  deal  of  superfluous 
discussion  on  the  question  what  degree  of  utility  is 
necessary  to  give  to  a  character  "selective  value."  The 
slightest  degree  of  utility  gives  selective  value  to  a 
character.  Natural  selection  does  not  require  a  varia- 
tion of  such  critical  importance  as  to  preserve  the  lives 
of  its  possessors  in  a  general  massacre  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  species.  It  is  enough  that  a  variation 
should  enable  its  possessors  to  attain  a  slightly  greater 
average  longevity,  and  to  leave  a  slightly  greater  aver- 
age number  of  offspring.  Any  character  that  in- 
creases, however  slightly,  the  comfort  of  its  possessors, 
must  improve  their  general  tone  of  health  and  vigor, 
and  so  give  them  a  greater  average  longevity.  An 
extra  inch  in  the  length  of  the  tail  of  a  mammal  which 
uses  its  tail  as  a  fly-brush,  may  have  selective  value.* 

A  similar,  and  perhaps  a  more  cogent,  argument 
against  the  adequacy  of  natural  selection  may  be  stated 
in  the  proposition  that  incipient  stages  of  organs  would 
not  as  a  rule  be  useful  in  any  appreciable  degree,  even 
though  the  perfect  organ  might  be  of  great  utility,  and 

*  Conn,  The  Method  of  Evolution^  p.  85. 
223 


The  Origin  of  Species 

that  the  incipient  stages  would  therefore  be  incapable 
of  being  preserved  by  means  of  natural  selection.  The 
fins  of  fishes  must  have  been  in  their  primitive  condi- 
tion simply  very  slight  folds  of  skin,  and  it  has  been 
argued  that  such  slight  folds  of  skin  would  be  of  no 
use  as  fins  or  for  any  other  purpose,  and  that  therefore 
there  would  be  no  reason  why  natural  selection  should 
preserve  them.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Darwin 
assumed  an  unnecessary  burden  in  practically  limiting 
himself  to  the  supposition  of  minute  variations.  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  the  majority  of  variations  are 
insignificant,  but  nevertheless  it  is  a  matter  of  common 
experience  that  from  time  to  time  very  marked  varia- 
tions do  appear.  Offspring  are  occasionally  produced 
which  differ  very  widely  indeed  from  their  parents. 
Two  of  the  most  remarkable  instances  of  new 
breeds  among  domestic  animals  developed  in  recent 
times  have  originated  from  strongly  marked  variations 
of  this  sort.  One  of  these  cases  is  that  of  the  so-called 
ancon,  or  otter,  sheep,  a  breed  formerly  common  in 
New  England,  though  more  recently  displaced  by 
breeds  imported  from  Europe.  The  otter  sheep  orig- 
inated in  1 79 1  from  a  single  lamb  which  attracted  the 
attention  of  its  owner  by  the  shortness  of  its  legs.  The 
enterprising  farmer  conceived  the  idea  that  a  short- 
legged  breed  of  sheep  would  be  desirable,  since  they 
would  be  less  likely  to  jump  fences  than  the  longer- 
legged  race.  He  accordingly  reared  the  strange  lamb 
to  maturity,  and  bred  from  that  individual  with  such 
success  as  to  start  a  well  characterized  breed  of  short- 

224 


Variations  not  always  Minute 

legged  sheep.  The  black-shouldered  variety  of  pea- 
cocks is  known  to  have  originated  in  a  similar  way,  by 
the  sudden  appearance  of  a  number  of  birds  whose 
plumage  departed  very  widely  from  the  parental  type. 
There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  such  variations  may 
not  occasionally  take  place  in  a  state  of  nature,  and 
why  they  may  not  be  of  some  significance  in  the  process 
of  evolution  of  new  species.* 

Another  objection  to  the  adequacy  of  natural  selec- 
tion is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  utility  of  a  specific 
character  often  depends  upon  the  mutual  adaptation  of 
characters  of  various  organs  and  tissues.  A  deer's 
antlers  may  be  useful ;  but,  if  the  antlers  were  devel- 
oped without  the  development  of  the  muscles  and  bones 
of  the  neck  and  shoulders  in  such  wise  as  to  enable  the 
creature  to  wield  the  antlers,  they  would  be  HOt  only 
useless  but  pernicious.f  This  objection  has  weight 
in  regard  to  variations  of  organs  of  exquisite  com- 
plexity, as  the  eyes  of  vertebrates  or  cephalopods.  The 
objection  finds  at  least  a  partial  answer  in  the  principle 
which  Weismann  has  called  '1ntra-selection."|  By  this 
word  he  denotes  a  certain  plasticity  of  the  organism, 
whereby,  in  the  development  of  the  individual,  various 
organs  and  tissues  grow  in  mutual  correlation.  If  a 
deer  were  produced  with  a  congenital  variation  in  the 
direction  of  a  tendency  to  heavier  antlers,  the  weight 
of  the  antlers  would  cause  a  stronger  development  of 

*  See  Bateson,  Materials  for  the  Study  of  Variation. 
t  Spencer,  Principles  of  Biology,  vol.  i,  p.  514. 

X  Romanes  Lecture,  The  Effect  of  External  Influences  on  Development^ 
1894,  pp.  II,  18. 

225 


The  Origin  of  Species 

the  muscles  of  the  neck,  and  that  in  turn  would  induce 
modifications  in  the  bones  to  which  the  muscles  were 
attached.  According  to  this  view,  a  congenital  and 
heritable  variation  in  one  organ  may  be  rendered  use- 
ful by  correlated  modifications  in  other  organs,  which, 
though  not  inherited,  are  independently  developed  in 
each  individual.  There  is  an  obvious  analogy  between 
Weismann's  doctrine  of  intra-selection  and  the  theory 
of  organic  selection  already  discussed.*  Each  of  the 
two  conceptions  is  in  some  sense  a  mediation  between 
the  Lamarckian  and  the  Darwinian  conception  of 
evolution. 

A  fourth  objection  to  the  sufficiency  of  natural  se- 
lection is  that  any  variation,  however  desirable,  is  not 
likely  to  be  preserved  and  made  the  starting  point  for 
the  development  of  a  new 'species  unless  it  occurs  simul- 
taneously in  a  considerable  number  of  individuals.f 
Suppose  that  in  some  species  the  relation  between  the 
rate  of  reproduction  and  the  rate  of  mortality  is  such 
that,  on  the  average,  one  in  every  thousand  of  the 
organisms  hatched  from  the  egg  survives  to  maturity. 
Suppose  an  individual  is  produced  which  has  varied 
in  a  manner  so  desirable  as  to  give  it  twice  as  good  a 
chance  of  surviving  in  the  struggle  for  life  as  the  aver- 
age of  the  individuals  of  the  species.  It  will  still,  as 
has  been  argued,  have  only  one  chance  in  five  hundred 
of  surviving  to  maturity.  If  a  single  individual  or 
a  few  individuals  possessing  some  desirable  variation 
should  survive  to  maturity,  it  is  further  claimed  that 

*  Page  220.  t  North  British  Review y  June,  1867. 

226 


Isolation 

the  desirable  variation  would  nevertheless  disappear 
in  the  course  of  a  few  generations  by  promiscuous 
crossing  with  the  vast  multitude  of  individuals  of  the 
species  which  do  not  possess  the  variation  in  question. 
The  conclusion  suggested  by  this  line  of  reasoning  is 
obviously  that,  in  order  that  a  variation  may  be  pre- 
served by  natural  selection  and  made  the  basis  of  the 
evolution  of  a  new  species,  it  must  appear  simulta- 
neously in  a  considerable  number  of  individuals.  Apart 
from  merely  quantitative  variations  in  the  develop- 
ment of  an  organ  or  character  which  has  already  been 
acquired,  it  seems  improbable  that  like  variations  will 
appear  simultaneously  in  individuals,  unless  there  be 
some  cause  of  determinate  variation. 

Without  denying  that  this  argument  possesses  great 
force  (as  was  early  acknowledged  by  Darwin  him- 
self),* it  may  be  noticed  that  in  many  cases  the  action 
of  natural  selection  may  be  greatly  assisted,  as  has  been 
pointed  out  by  Romanes  and  Gulick,f  by  the  isolation 
of  the  individuals  that  have  varied  in  any  particular 
direction,  and  the  consequent  prevention  of  their  cross- 
ing wnth  other  individuals  of  the  species.  There  may 
be,  in  fact,  various  kinds  of  isolation.  There  may  be 
geographical  isolation,  as  when  a  small  colony  of  the 
individuals  of  a  species  is  established  on  an  island,  the 
home  of  the  majority  of  the  species  being  on  an  adja- 
cent continent.  As  the  average  character  of  the  small 
colony  on  the  island  will  practically  never  be  exactly 

*  Origin  of  Species^  5th  (American)  edition,  p.  93. 
t  Romanes,  Darwin  and  After  Darwin,  vol.  iii. 

227 


The  Origin  of  Species 

identical  with  the  average  character  of  the  main  body 
of  the  species,  the  insular  colony  will  start  on  its  his- 
tory in  a  different  condition  from  that  of  the  main 
body  of  the  species.  In  most  cases  also  its  environ- 
ment will  be  more  or  less  different  from  that  of 
the  continental  portion  of  the  species.  Thus  we  can 
readily  understand  the  evolution  of  peculiar  species  in 
insular  situations  as  a  result  of  geographical  isolation. 
But  there  may  be  other  forms  of  isolation  where  geo- 
graphical isolation  does  not  exist.  There  may  be  a 
topographical  isolation  within  the  same  continuous 
area.  If  certain  individuals  of  a  species  vary  in  such 
a  way  that  they  choose  a  different  station,  that  differ- 
ence of  station  may  so  isolate  them  from  the  mass  of 
the  species  as  in  great  degree  to  prevent  their  crossing. 
If,  for  instance,  certain  individuals  of  a  species,  in 
consequence  of  some  variation,  tend  to  live  on  higher 
ground  or  on  lower  ground,  in  places  more  dry  or  in 
places  more  damp  than  the  stations  frequented  by  the 
mass  of  the  species,  there  will  be  an  obvious  tendency 
for  the  individuals  that  share  the  variation  to  breed 
with  each  other,  while  their  crossing  with  other  indi- 
viduals not  possessing  the  variation  in  question  will 
be  more  or  less  effectively  prevented.  There  may  be, 
again,  physiological  isolation,  where  there  is  no  local 
isolation,  either  geographical  or  topographical.  If  cer- 
tain individuals  in  a  species  of  flowering  plant  vary  in 
such  wise  as  to  blossom  a  little  earlier  or  a  little  later 
than  the  other  members  of  the  species,  that  difference 
in  the  time  of  flowering  will  operate  to  prevent  crosses 

228 


Sterility  of  Hybrids 

between  individuals  which  do  possess  and  individuals 
which  do  not  possess  the  variation  in  question.  In  the 
case  of  the  higher  animals,  the  act  of  pairing  is  gov- 
erned in  large  degree  by  psychological  conditions ;  and, 
if  certain  individuals  vary  in  any  way  that  renders 
them  less  attractive  to  the  other  individuals  of  the  spe- 
cies, or  if  certain  individuals  develop  a  variation  cor- 
related with  some  peculiarity  of  instinct  which  makes 
the  other  members  of  the  species  less  attractive  to 
them,  the  result  will  be  that  the  two  kinds  of  indi- 
viduals within  the  limits  of  the  same  species  will  be 
more  or  less  effectively  prevented  from  crossing. 

There  is  one  very  broad  fact  in  natural  history  which 
seems  to  indicate  that  physiological  isolation  has  had 
much  to  do  with  the  development  of  species.  In  one 
respect  species  existing  in  nature  differ  widely  from 
breeds  which  have  been  produced  in  domestication.  In 
the  case  of  distinct  species  it  is  certainly  the  general 
rule  that  the  blending  of  two  species  is  resisted  by  a 
greater  or  less  degree  of  sterility.  In  the  majority  of 
cases  an  attempted  cross  between  individuals  of  two 
species,  whether  animal  or  vegetable,  results  in  the 
production  of  no  offspring  whatever.  In  some  cases, 
offspring  is  produced,  as  in  the  well-known  case  of  the 
mule,  which  is  the  result  of  a  cross  between  two  nearly 
allied  species,  the  horse  and  the  ass.  But,  in  the  cases 
in  which  a  hybrid  offspring  is  produced,  it  is  usually 
found  that  the  hybrids  are  themselves  incapable  of  pro- 
ducing offspring.  Even  in  the  cases  in  which  a  second 
generation  has  been  produced,  there  appears,  in  gen- 

*  229 


The  Origin  of  Species 

eral,  an  obvious  tendency  for  the  hybrid  race  to  die 
out  by  reason  of  increasing  sterihty  in  successive  gen- 
erations. While  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  to  war- 
rant the  assertion  of  a  universal  sterility  of  hybrids, 
it  is  certainly  the  general  law  that  the  crossing  of  dis- 
tinct species  is  opposed  by  a  condition  of  sterility 
greater  or  less  in  degree.  On  the  other  hand,  there 
appears  to  be  no  tendency  to  sterility  in  the  case  of  the 
crossing  of  different  breeds  of  domestic  animals,  even 
though  the  structural  differences  between  those  breeds 
may  be  greater  than  exist  between  many  wild  species. 
Different  breeds  of  pigeons  differ  from  each  other  in 
external  aspect  and  in  osteological  and  other  anatom- 
ical characters  far  more  than  many  closely  allied  spe- 
cies. And  yet  there  is  not  known  to  be  any  tendency 
to  sterility  in  the  .crossing  of  the  most  widely  different 
breeds.  This  difference  between  wild  species  and  do- 
mestic breeds  has  often  been  alleged  as  an  objection 
to  the  theory  of  evolution  in  general,  since  it  has  been 
claimed  to  show  that  a  species  must  be  due  to  some 
cause  radically  distinct  from  the  occasional  variations, 
accumulated  and  intensified  by  artificial  selection,  to 
which  breeds  of  domestic  animals  owe  their  origin.  It 
is  probable  that  the  true  interpretation  of  the  mutual 
sterility  of  species  is  found  in  the  views  of  Romanes 
and  Gulick.  If  a  variation,  useful  in  itself,  and  there- 
fore fitted  to  constitute  the  basis  of  a  new  species  under 
the  operation  of  natural  selection,  is  correlated  with 
such  variation  in  the  reproductive  organs  as  renders 
those  individuals  in  greater  or  less  degree  incapable 

230   • 


Physiological  Selection 

of  union  with  other  individuals  of  the  species,  then 
that  variation  will  not  be  in  danger  of  disappearing 
by  successive  dilution  as  the  resuft  of  promiscuous 
crossing  with  individuals  not  possessing  the  variation 
in  question.  On  the  other  hand,  a  useful  variation  not 
thus  correlated  with  changes  in  the  reproductive  sys- 
tem leading  to  sterility  in  crossing,  will  be  liable  to 
disappear  by  promiscuous  crossing  before  it  can  be 
fixed  by  natural  selection.  According  to  these  views, 
the  characters  which  have  been  seized  upon  by  natural 
selection,  and  have  been  made  the  basis  for  the  evolu- 
tion of  new  species,  have  been  precisely  those  characters 
which  were  correlated  with  variations  in  the  reproduc- 
tive system  rendering  their  possessors  in  greater  or  less 
degree  incapable  of  crossing  with  other  individuals  of 
the  species.  This  principle  of  ''physiological  selection" 
seems  to  offer  an  intelligible  explanation  of  the  preva- 
lent fact  of  mutual  sterility  between  individuals  of 
different  species,  and  it  is  obvious  that  the  action  of  nat- 
ural selection  must  be  greatly  aided  by  such  physiolog- 
ical isolation.  The  supposition  which  is  at  the  basis  of 
this  doctrine,  namely,  that  very  slight  variations  in  the 
general  structure  may  be  correlated  with  such  modifi- 
cations of  the  reproductive  system  as  will  involve  the 
result  of  mutual  sterility,  is  in  itself  altogether  prob- 
able. It  is  well  known  that  the  reproductive  system  is 
more  susceptible  than  any  other  part  of  the  organiza- 
tion to  modifications  dependent  upon  slight  changes  in 
the  environment  and  mode  of  life.  Very  slight  changes 
often  suffice  to  render  individuals  altogether  incapable 

231 


The  Origin  of  Species 

of  reproduction,  and  it  is  easy  to  believe  that  very 
slight  differences  jn  the  general  organization  of  differ- 
ent individuals  of  a  species  may  be  correlated  with  such 
differences  in  the  reproductive  system  as  will  involve  a 
greater  or  less  degree  of  mutual  sterility. 

A  fifth  objection  to  the  adequacy  of  natural  selec- 
tion, in  the  absence  of  determinate  variation,  is  found 
in  the  present  views  in  regard  to  the  length  of  geolog- 
ical time.  Darwin  was  in  geology  a  disciple  of  Lyell, 
the  great  leader  of  the  uniformitarian  school.  As  we 
have  already  seen,*  that  school  of  geologists  regarded 
all  geological  changes  as  slow,  and  demanded  well- 
nigh  an  eternity  for  the  history  of  the  earth.  The  new 
school  of  geology,  which  has  displaced  alike  the  old 
uniformitarianism  and  the  older  catastrophism,  recog- 
nizes that,  while  some  geological  changes  are  slow, 
others  are  rapid.  The  question  of  the  age  of  the  earth 
has  been  studied  by  physicists  as  well  as  by  geologists ; 
and,  in  general,  the  physicists' who  have  reasoned  on 
the  basis  of  thermodynamic  laws  in  regard  to  the  proc- 
ess of  the  cooling  of  the  globe  have  reached  the  result 
that  the  age  of  the  earth  must  be  very  much  less  than 
was  supposed  by  Lyell  and  the  uniformitarian  geolo- 
gists. While  the  geologists  of  to-day  by  no  means 
implicitly  accept  the  definite  numerical  statements  in 
regard  to  the  age  of  the  earth  which  have  been  offered 
by  some  eminent  physicists,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
geological  thought  has  been  largely  influenced  by  the 
views  of  physicists.    Charles  Darwin,  who  was  prima- 

*  Page  157. 

232 


Length  of  Geological  Time 

rily  a  biologist,  secondarily  a  geologist,  estimated  the 
time  that  has  elapsed  since  the  condensation  of  the 
ocean  upon  the  cooling  surface  of  the  globe  as 
200,000,000  years.  George  Darwin,  who  is  prima- 
rily a  physicist,  secondarily  a  geologist,  estimates  the 
age  of  the  earth  since  its  molten  condition  as  only 
57,000,000  years.  The  difference  of  opinion  between 
father  and  son  is  somewhat  representative  of  the  dif- 
ference between  two  generations  of  geologists.  It  is 
not  unlikely  that  the  latter  estimate  is  too  small,  and 
that  the  pendulum  must  oscillate  again  and  again  be- 
fore it  comes  to  rest.  Now  it  is  obvious  that  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  vast  multitude  of  species  that  have  existed, 
solely  by  the  agency  of  natural  selection  acting  upon 
utterly  indeterminate  variations,  must  have  been  a  slow 
process.  It  is  indeed  an  important  and  valuable  sug- 
gestion in  this  connection,  that  forms  of  life  were  much 
more  plastic  in  earlier  than  in  later  geological  time.* 
When  life  was  just  emerging  from  the  primitive  con- 
dition of  unicellular  simplicity,  the  differentiation  of 
new  sub-kingdoms  may  have  been  accomplished  more 
rapidly  than  the  evolution  of  new  species  at  a  later 
date.  As  the  generations  multiply,  the  force  of  hered- 
ity is  strengthened.  The  centripetal  force  increases, 
the  centrifugal  force  decreases.  But,  however  much  of 
weight  may  be  given  to  this  consideration,  the  conclu- 
sion remains  that,  in  the  absence  of  determinate  varia- 

*  This  idea  was  set  forth  by  Professor  H.  W.  Conn,  of  Wesleyan  University, 
in  an  article  pubHshed  in  the  Afnericati  Naturalist  in  1886  See  Conn,  The 
f.iviiig  World,  p.  178.  Adam  Sedgwick,  in  his  address  before  the  Biological 
Section  of  the  British  Association  in  1899,  formulated  the  doctrine  in  the 
striking  phrase,  "  The  Evolution  of  Heredity."     See  Nature,  vol.  Ix,  p.  509. 


The  Origin  of  Species 

tion,  evolution  must  have  required  an  immense  amount 
of  time. 

While  our  knowledge  is  altogether  inadequate  to  en- 
able us  to  give  any  definite  estimate  of  the  time  neces- 
sary for  such  evolution,  one  cannot  avoid  feeling  at 
least  a  strong  suspicion  that  such  a  process  of  evolution 
would  be  too  slow  to  achieve  the  result  in  the  moderate 
duration  of  a  few  tens  of  millions  of  years,  to  which 
we  seem  now  to  be  restricted.  If  we  can  assume  that 
causes  of  determinate  variation  exist,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  process  of  evolution  may  have  gone  on  much  more 
rapidly. 

It  seems,  on  the  whole,  probable,  that  determinate 
variation  has  occurred.  In  all  probability  acquired 
variations  are  in  some  degree  inherited ;  and,  if  this  be 
true,  the  direct  influence  of  environment,  as  assumed 
by  Saint  Hilaire,  and  the  indirect  influence  of  environ- 
ment, as  assumed  by  Lamarck,  must  both  be  recog- 
nized as  true  causes  of  determinate  variation.  And, 
in  the  density  of  our  ignorance  in  regard  to  the  causes 
alike  of  heredity  and  of  variation,  we  certainly  cannot 
deny  the  possibility  that  determinate  variation  may  take 
place  as  the  result  of  causes  to  us  unknown. 

A  word  should  be  said  in  regard  to  another  agency 
in  evolution,  which  is  far  less  important  indeed  than 
natural  selection,  but  which  has  probably  had  some 
effect.  I  refer  to  the  principle  which  Darwin  calls 
"sexual  selection."*  In  order  that  a  variation  pos- 
sessed by  certain  individuals  should  be  preserved  and 

*  Darwin,  The  Descent  of  Man ^  and  Selection  in  relation  to  Sex. 


Sexual  Selection 

intensified,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  individuals  which 
do  not  possess  that  variation  should  be  exterminated. 
It  is  sufficient  that  they  should  be  prevented  from 
propagating.  If  a  breeder  of  domestic  animals  desires 
to  develop  any  particular  quality  in  his  stock,  he  does 
it,  as  we  have  seen,  by  selective  breeding.  He  breeds 
from  those  individuals  in  his  herd  which  already  pos- 
sess the  desired  character  in  the  highest  degree.  But 
it  is  not  necessary  that  he  should  slaughter  all  the  rest 
of  his  herd.  It  is  sufficient  that  he  should  shut  them 
up,  and  prevent  them  from  breeding.  So  it  may  be 
assumed  that,  in  a  state  of  nature,  a  selection  of  certain 
individuals  to  propagate  would  be  as  real  an  evolu- 
tionary force  as  a  selection  of  certain  individuals  to 
survive.  It  is  a  common  belief  with  those  who  have 
never  studied  the  life  of  animals,  that,  in  a  state  of 
nature,  the  great  majority  of  adult  individuals  pair  and 
leave  offspring.  Darwin  has  shown,  however,  that 
there  is  much  reason  to  believe  this  popular  impression 
to  be  erroneous.  He  has  shown  that  it  is  probable  that 
large  numbers  of  individuals  that  survive  to  maturity 
are  prevented  from  propagating.  In  many  species,  the 
possession  of  the  females  is  a  matter  that  is  decided  by 
conflict  among  the  males,  and  fierce  duels  are  fought 
between  rivals.  In  many  species,  peculiar  weapons  are 
developed  by  the  males  for  use  in  these  combats ;  and 
in  some  cases  the  relation  of  these  weapons  to  the  proc- 
ess of  reproduction  is  the  more  obvious  by  reason  of 
the  fact  that  the  weapons  are  borne  only  in  the  breed- 
ing season.     In  most  species  of  deer,  the  antlers  are 

235 


The  Origin  of  Species 

developed  only  in  the  male,  and  are  shed  periodically, 
being  annually  renewed  at  the  breeding  season.  So  it 
is,  in  most  species  of  salmon,  with  the  hooked  jaw, 
which  constitutes  a  very  curious  weapon  in  the  male. 
In  other  species,  the  possession  of  the  females  is  se- 
cured by  a  sort  of  courtship.  Every  one  has  observed, 
in  the  case  of  many  of  our  common  birds,  the  males 
endeavoring  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  females  by 
attitudes  and  actions  adapted  to  display  in  the  most  at- 
tractive way  the  beauty  of  their  plumage.  In  some 
cases  the  charm  of  plumage  and  of  attitude  is  supple- 
mented by  melody  of  voice.  It  seems  probable  that 
Darwin  is  right  in  attributing  to  sexual  selection  the 
development  of  those  weapons  of  offense  and  defense 
which  are  borne  only  by  males,  and  the  brilliant  plu- 
mage which  is  so  frequent  a  characteristic  of  male 
birds.  The  dull  and  inconspicuous  colors  often  worn 
by  female  birds  of  those  species  in  which  the  males  are 
brilliantly  colored,  are  doubtless  to  be  understood  as 
protective  colors,  rendering  the  bird  less  conspicuous 
while  sitting  upon  her  eggs. 

It  seems  certain  that  the  principle  of  sexual  selec- 
tion is  an  agency  of  considerable  importance  in  pre- 
serving from  degeneration  the  character  of  the  human 
species.  It  is  obvious  that  marked  physical  defects, 
diseases  that  are  repulsive,  contagious,  or  liable  to  be 
inherited,  disgraceful  immorality,  and  general  shift- 
lessness  and  forcelessness  such  as  to  incapacitate  one 
for  self-support,  render  persons  undesirable  as  part- 
ners in  marriage.    It  is  an  important  consideration,  as 

236 


Cessation  of  Natural  Selection  in  Man 

regards  the  future  of  the  human  race,  that  the  effect 
of  Christian  civihzation  is  substantially  to  abolish  the 
action  of  natural  selection  between  individuals  of  the 
race.  In  the  pre-human  and  in  the  earlier  human 
stages  of  our  ancestry,  natural  selection  was  unques- 
tionably a  most  important  force.  The  weak  and  puny 
were  left  to  starve,  or  were  actively  destroyed.  And, 
when  civilization  had  advanced  so  far  that  intentional 
destruction  of  offspring  was  discountenanced,  the  lack 
of  medical  skill  and  sanitary  science  generally  allowed 
weak  and  puny  children  to  fall  early  victims  to  disease. 
While  thus  those  individuals  that  were  physically  in- 
ferior were  exterminated,  Draconian  codes  of  justice 
destroyed  those  individuals  whose  moral  character  was 
not  up  to  the  standard  -required  by  the  moral  sense  of 
the  tribe.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  this  action  of 
natural  selection  has  practically  ceased  in  the  life  of 
civilized  man.  Public  sanitation  and  medical  skill  pre- 
serve to  maturity  those  whose  physical  weaknesses  or 
defects  render  them  most  unfit  to  survive,  and  the 
milder  sentiment  of  modern  times  has  almost  abol- 
ished the  death  penalty  even  in  the  case  of  atrocious 
criminals.  The  operation  of  natural  selection  con- 
tinues a  little  longer  in  the  relations  of  different  na- 
tions or  tribes  than  in  the  relations  of  individuals  of 
the  same  nation  or  tribe.  The  disappearance  of  the 
American  Indians  from  most  of  the  territory  of  the 
United  States  has  been  an  exhibition  of  the  effect  of 
a  pretty  relentless  natural  selection.  But,  as  human 
life  becomes  more  completely  dominated  by  that  senti- 

237 


The  Origin  of  Life 

ment  of  univei'sal  brotherhood  which  characterizes  a 
Christian  civiHzation,  it  is  evident  that  the  operation 
of  natural  selection  within  the  human  race  must  entirely 
cease.  Society  must  demand  for  its  own  protection, 
when  the  safeguard  of  natural  selection  is  lost,  that 
sexual  selection  be  exercised  more  strictly  and  strenu- 
ously than  in  former  times.  The  marriage  of  persons 
in  any  marked  degree  physically  abnormal  or  defective 
must  be  interdicted  by  public  opinion,  supplemented,  if 
necessary,  by  legislation;  and  the  propagation  of  a 
criminal  class  must  be  checked  by  the  adoption  of  the 
principle  of  the  indefinite  sentence  even  for  petty 
crimes.  The  principle  of  the  indefinite  sentence  has 
been  advocated  by  many  of  the  most  enlightened  soci- 
ologists of  our  time  on  entirely  different  grounds,  but 
it  is  evident  that  their  arguments  find  strong  reinforce- 
ment in  biological  science.  Not  only  the  negative,  but 
also  the  positive,  application  of  the  principle  of  sexual 
selection  is  important  for  the  maintenance  and  advance- 
ment of  the  character  of  the  race.  The  social  and  eco- 
nomic conditions  that  tend  to  abstinence  from  mar- 
riage, late  marriages,  and  childless  marriages  on  the 
part  of  the  better  classes  of  the  population,  must  be 
regarded  with  grave  anxiety.* 

The  Origin  of  Life 

From  the  question  of  the  origin  of  particular  species 
w^e  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  life  itself,  for  obviously  the  doctrine  of  bio- 

*  Pearson,  Grammar  of  Science,  2ci  edition,  p.  466. 

238 


Spontaneous  Generation 

logical  evolution  is  not  complete  unless  it  can  include 
in  its  scope  the  origin  of  the  earliest  organisms,  which 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  the  ancestors  of  all 
subsequent  life.  If  the  doctrine  of  evolution  in  as- 
tronomy and  geology  gives  us  a  continuous  develop- 
ment of  the  inorganic  world  from  the  initial  condition 
of  a  nebula  to  the  dawn  of  life,  and  if  the  doctrine  of 
evolution  in  biology  gives  us  a  continuous  development 
of  the  organic  world  from  the  dawn  of  life  to  the 
flora  and  fauna  of  to-day,  there  is  still  required  for 
the  completion  of  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  nature  the 
recognition  of  a  natural  process  of  evolution  whereby 
non-living  matter  becomes  living. 

At  the  time  when  the  publication  of  Darwin's  "Or- 
igin of  Species"  opened  the  modern  phase  of  the  dis- 
cussion of  biological  evolution,  the  question  of  the 
spontaneous  generation  of  certain  organisms  was  a  sub- 
ject of  earnest  investigation  and  bitter  controversy; 
and  it  was  then  clearly  recognized  that  a  theory  of 
the  evolution  of  life  from  non-living  matter  was  re- 
quired for  the  completion  of  the  general  doctrine  of 
evolution. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that,  though  in  general  the  preju- 
dices of  ignorance  have  been  adverse  to  evolutionary 
ideas,  those  prejudices  have  been  in  favor  of  sponta- 
neous generation.  There  are  two  reasons  for  the 
prevalence  of  a  crude  and  unintelligent  belief  in  spon- 
taneous generation.  One  of  these  is  the  fact  that  the 
larval  forms  of  many  animals  are  so  very  unlike  the 
adult  forms  that  the  relationship  between  the  two  may 

239 


The  Origin  of  Life 

long  remain  unsuspected.  When  a  piece  of  putrefying 
meat  is  seen  to  be  swarming  with  maggots,  of  course 
people  ignorant  of  zoology  do  not  suspect  that  the  mag- 
gots are  young  flies.  They  look  so  entirely  different 
from  flies  that  their  relationship  is  easily  overlooked. 
The  other  reason  for  a  popular  belief  in  spontaneous 
generation  is  the  fact  that  in  many  cases  organisms  ap- 
pear in  situations  where  it  seems  very  difficult  to  ac- 
count for  their  presence  unless  they  can  be  supposed  to 
have  been  spontaneously  generated.  Insect  larvae  are 
found  in  fruits  that  appear  externally  sound,  the  slight 
wound  where  the  egg  of  the  creature  was  introduced 
having  been  so  completely  healed  as  to  be  unrecogni- 
zable. Parasitic  organisms  are  found  in  animals,  not 
merely  in  the  alimentary  canal,  w^here  it  is  compara- 
tively easy  to  understand  the  method  of  their  introduc- 
tion, but  enveloped  in  the  tissues  of  various  organs,  as 
the  lung,  the  heart,  the  brain,  or  the  eye.  In  some  of 
those  cases  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  presence 
of  the  parasites  is  so  great  that  it  is  no  wonder  that 
people  have  been  led  to  believe  that  the  organisms  are 
spontaneously  generated  in  the  situations  in  which  they 
are  found. 

Indeed,  so  strongly  was  the  unscientific  mind  in  for- 
mer ages  possessed  by  the  idea  of  the  spontaneous 
generation  of  new  life  out  of  the  decay  of  old  life  that 
even  the  normal  processes  of  vegetable  reproduction 
were  misinterpreted  as  cases  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion. It  was,  for  instance,  the  common  belief  that  a 
seed  buried  in  the  ground  died,  and  from  its  death  was 

240 


Redi's  Experiments 

evolved  the  new  life  of  the  growing  plant.  In  one  of 
the  most  touching  and  beautiful  of  all  the  discourses 
of  Jesus,  we  find  a  figurative  passage  based  upon  this 
popular  misinterpretation  of  the  facts  regarding  the 
germination  of  seeds: — ''Except  a  corn  of  wheat  fall 
into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone;  but,  if  it 
die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit."*  Of  course  we  are 
in  no  wise  disturbed  by  the  recognition  of  the  scientific 
error  involved  in  this  figure.  It  was  not  the  mission  of 
Jesus  to  lecture  on  vegetable  physiology.  But  the  pas- 
sage strikingly  illustrates  the  prevalence  of  the  popular 
belief  in  the  spontaneous  generation  of  new  life  out  of 
the  decay  of  old  life. 

But,  however  tempting  might  be  the  belief  in  spon- 
taneous generation,  as  affording  an  easy  explanation 
of  the  presence  of  organisms  in  situations  where  it 
was  difficult  otherwise  to  account  for  them,  such  a 
belief  could  not  persist  in  the  face  of  scientific  investi- 
gation. The  very  beginning  of  scientific  investigation 
of  the  subject  at  once  disposed  of  many  of  the  supposed 
cases  of  spontaneous  generation. f  The  first  serious  at- 
tempt at  the  investigation  of  supposed  cases  of  sponta- 
neous generation  was  made  by  an  Italian  named  Redi, 
whose  results  w^ere  published  in  1668.  He  investigated 
the  origin  of  the  maggots  which  commonly  appear  in 
putrefying  meat.  He  tried  the  very  simple  experiment 
of  putting  a  piece  of  meat  in  a  jar  and  tying  a  sheet  of 

*  John,  xii,  24. 

t  An  admirably  clear  and  interesting  history  of  the  investigations  result- 
ing in  the  disproof  of  spontaneous  generation  is  given  in  Huxley's  address 
on  Biogenesis  and  Abiogenesis,  included  in  his  Discourses  Biological  and 
Geological. 


or  THE  X 

^      ^    J 


The  Origin  of  Life 

gauze  over  the  mouth  of  the  jar.  Plenty  of  flies  buzzed 
around  the  jar,  but  the  meshes  of  the  gauze  were  too 
fine  for  them  to  get  through ;  so  the  flies  could  not  get 
to  the  meat,  and  of  course  no  maggots  appeared  in  the 
meat.  But  it  was  observed  that  some  of  the  flies  laid 
eggs  on  the  gauze,  and  the  development  of  those  eggs 
was  watched.  It  was  found,  of  course,  that  in  due 
season  maggots  were  hatched  from  the  eggs,  and  so 
the  spontaneous  generation  of  maggots  was  disposed 
of  at  once  and  forever. 

While  it  was  thus  easily  proved  in  the  case  of  com- 
paratively large  and  conspicuous  animals  that  they 
originated  by  normal  processes  of  reproduction,  and 
not  by  spontaneous  generation,  the  proof  of  such  a 
conclusion  was  obviously  less  easy  in  the  case  of  or- 
ganisms of  extreme  minuteness.  Two  hundred  years 
after  Redi's  time,  when  the  controversy  in  regard  to 
evolution  was  raging  with  fiercest  intensity,  the  ques- 
tion of  spontaneous  generation  had  become  limited  to 
organisms  so  minute  that  their  existence  was  unknown 
and  unsuspected  in  Redi's  time  and  for  generations 
thereafter.  At  the  time  of  the  publication  of  *'The 
Origin  of  Species,"  the  only  organisms  which  any  sci- 
entific man  supposed  to  be  spontaneously  generated 
were  bacteria.  These  are  organisms  of  extreme  minute- 
ness, unicellular,  and  so  simple  in  structure  as  to  be 
destitute  of  any  conspicuous  nucleus.  In  the  common 
classification  which  somewhat  arbitrarily  distributes 
the  lower  and  simpler  organisms  between  the  vegetable 
and  the  animal  kingdoms,  these  organisms  are  referred 

242 


Bacteria  and  Putrefaction 

to  the  vegetable  kingdom.  It  has  long  been  well  known 
that,  whenever  a  liquid  containing  some  of  the  more 
complex  organic  compounds,  as,  for  instance,  an  in- 
fusion of  meat  or  cheese  or  hay,  is  exposed  to  the  air 
for  a  time  at  a  moderately  warm  temperature,  it  un- 
dergoes a  chemical  change  revealed  by  those  extremely 
disagreeable  odors  which  we  call  the  odors  of  putre- 
faction, and,  if  examined  under  a  high  power  of  the 
microscope,  it  is  found  to  be  swarming  with  bacteria. 
These  two  phenomena,  namely,  the  peculiar  form  of 
chemical  decomposition  which  we  call  putrefaction,  and 
the  appearance  of  swarms  of  certain  species  of  bacteria, 
are  always  found  to  accompany  each  other.  Their 
uniform  relation  of  coexistence  suggests  that  they 
stand  to  each  other  also  in  a  causal  relation ;  but  which 
is  cause,  and  which  is  effect?  Does  the  chemical 
change  of  putrefaction  afford  the  necessary  condition 
for  the  spontaneous  generation  of  bacteria?  or  is  the 
multiplication  of  bacteria  the  cause  of  the  chemical 
change?  That  is  the  question  which  was  hotly'  dis- 
cussed in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

Of  course  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  matter  now. 
The  researches  of  Pasteur  and  others  have  conclusively 
proved  that  the  bacteria  owe  their  existence  to  normal 
processes  of  reproduction,  and  that  the  putrefaction  of 
the  liquids  is  the  effect  and  not  the  cause  of  the  multi- 
plication of  the  bacteria.  It  is  curious  how  completely 
Redi's  classical  experiment,  by  which  he  disproved  the 
spontaneous  generation  of  maggots,  was  the  type  of 
the  more  refined  and  elaborate  experiments  by  which 

243 


The  Origin  of  Life 

the  spontaneous  generation  of  bacteria  was  disproved. 
A  very  simple  experiment  of  the  sort  may  be  made  as 
follows : — If  we  put  into  a  flask  a  small  quantity  of 
some  putrescible  infusion,  stuff  the  neck  of  the  flask 
with  a  plug  of  cotton  wool,  boil  the  liquid  for  two  or 
three  hours,  and  then  leave  the  flask  for  some  days 
exposed  to  the  atmosphere  under  ordinary  conditions 
of  temperature;  in  the  majority  of  cases  no  bacteria 
will  appear  in  the  liquid,  and  the  liquid  will  not  un- 
dergo that  form  of  chemical  change  which  is  called 
putrefaction.  Whatever  living  organisms  may  have 
existed  in  the  liquid  at  the  commencement  of  the  ex- 
periment, will  have  been  killed  by  the  boiling ;  and  the 
introduction  of  organisms  or  spores  of  organisms  from 
without  will  have  been  prevented  by  the  plug  of  cotton 
wool.  The  plug  of  cotton  wool,  in  fact,  serves  pre- 
cisely the  same  purpose  as  the  sheet  of  gauze  in  Redi's 
experiment,  only  it  is  practically  a  net  of  finer  meshes 
adapted  to  catch  more  minute  objects.  The  parallelism 
between  the  experiment  of  the  seventeenth  century  and 
those  of  the  nineteenth  may  be  carried  a  step  further. 
As  Redi  found  the  eggs  of  flies  on  his  sheet  of  gauze, 
and  hatched  them  into  maggots,  so  we  may  introduce 
into  the  liquid  upon  which  we  are  experimenting  some 
of  the  cotton  with  which  the  flask  is  plugged  in  the 
experiment  just  described,  and  the  result  will  be  that 
the  liquid  will  quickly  swarm  with  bacteria,  and  un- 
dergo the  consequent  putrefactive  change.  Germs 
which  had  been  floating  in  the  air  have  been  caught  in 
the  cotton  wool. 

244 


Experiments  of  Pasteur  and  Others 

I  have  said  that,  under  the  conditions  of  the  experi- 
ment above  described,  the  liquid  will  ordinarily  remain 
for  an  indefinite  time  free  from  bacteria  and  free  from 
putrefaction;  but  in  some  cases,  if  the  experiment  is 
carried  on  precisely  as  has  been  described,  bacteria  will 
appear,  and  putrefaction  will  commence.  For  a  long 
time  these  conflicting  results  at  the  hands  of  different 
experimenters,  under  what  seemed  essentially  similar 
conditions,  were  very  puzzling  indeed.  It  appeared, 
in  general,  that  the  higher  the  temperature  to  which 
the  liquids  were  subjected  and  the  longer  the  time  of 
their  exposure,  the  less  likely  were  bacteria  to  appear. 
The  conflicting  results  are  now  perfectly  intelligible. 
We  know  that  the  appearance  of  bacteria  in  experi- 
ments of  the  general  class  under  discussion  was  due 
in  some  cases  to  the  blunders  of  careless  or  incompe- 
tent experimenters.  But  in  other  cases  the  appearance 
of  bacteria  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  spores  of  many 
species  of  bacteria  are  much  more  tenacious  of  life 
than  are  the  organisms  in  their  active  condition.  Such 
spores  may  be  killed  by  the  use  of  extremely  high 
temperatures ;  or  the  organisms  into  which  they  de- 
velop may  be  killed  by  prolonged  boiling  or  by  boiling 
repeated  at  intervals. 

A  very  important  side  light  was  thrown  upon  the 
question  of  spontaneous  generation  by  the  investiga- 
tions of  Tyndall,  the  English  physicist.  He  showed  in 
his  experiments  that,  if  a  beam  of  intense  light,  as  from 
a  powerful  electric  lamp,  passes  through  a  chamber 
filled  with  air  in  which  are  floating  solid  or  liquid 

245 


The  Origin  of  Life 

particles  of  extreme  minuteness,  the  path  of  the  beam 
will  be  manifest  by  a  pale  blue  radiance  like  the  azure 
of  the  sky,  the  result  of  the  selective  scattering  of  the 
rays  of  shortest  wave-lengths  from  the  surfaces  of  these 
minute  particles.  The  blue  of  the  sky,  in  fact,  is  due 
precisely  to  such  a  selective  reflection  of  sunlight  from 
minute  solid  or  liquid  particles  floating  in  the  atmos- 
phere. On  the  other  hand,  Tyndall  showed  that,  if  a 
strong  beam  of  light  passes  through  a  chamber  filled 
with  air  entirely  destitute  of  solid  or  liquid  particles, 
the  path  of  the  beam  will  not  be  revealed.  There  be- 
ing nothing  to  reflect  the  light,  that  part  of  the  cham- 
ber through  which  the  beam  is  passing  will  have  the 
same  utter  blackness  as  the  rest.  It  was  thus  shown 
to  be  possible  by  optical  means  to  determine  whether 
a  portion  of  air  does  or  does  not  contain  minute  solid 
or  liquid  particles.  Now,  it  was  further  shown  that 
putrescible  liquids  can  be  exposed  for  indefinite  periods 
of  time  to  air  that  is  destitute  of  floating  particles, 
without  becoming  infected  by  bacteria  and  without  any 
putrefactive  change ;  while  the  same  liquids,  if  exposed 
to  air  in  which  the  optical  test  reveals  the  presence  of 
solid  particles,  quickly  become  infected.  It  was  thus 
shown  that  under  ordinary  conditions  atmospheric  air 
contains  countless  multitudes  of  solid  particles,  some 
of  which  are  bacteria  or  spores  of  bacteria. 

It  would  lead  us  too  far  away  from  the  subject 
which  we  have  in  hand,  if  we  should  undertake  to  speak 
of  the  results  of  modern  bacteriological  study.  The 
value  of  the  contributions  which  bacteriology  has  made 

246 


Exploration  of  the  Ocean  Bottom 

to  hygiene  and  medicine  is  absolutely  incalculable.  The 
knowledge  of  the  bacterial  origin  of  many  diseases  pre- 
pares the  way  for  the  discovery  of  means  of  prevention 
and  of  cure.  The  diffusion  of  infectious  diseases  by 
means  of  contamination  of  water  and  milk  we  have 
learned  effectively  to  prevent.  Antiseptic  surgery 
performs  with  little  peril  operations  involving  the  open- 
ing of  internal  parts  of  the  body,  which  in  former  times 
would  have  been  almost  certainly  fatal.  But  of  course 
we  are  at  present  concerned  only  with  the  bearing  of 
bacteriological  investigation  upon  the  question  of  spon- 
taneous generation. 

About  the  same  time  that  the  question  of  sponta- 
neous generation  of  bacteria  was  eagerly  discussed, 
there  was  a  hope  of  some  light  on  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  life  from  another  direction.  Those  same 
years,  just  after  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
were  marked  by  the  beginning  of  activity  in  the  ex- 
ploration of  the  depths  of  the  sea  and  in  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  life  of  the  abyssal  zone.  In  those  dark 
abysses,  where  the  conditions  might  reasonably  be  sup- 
posed to  have  remained  substantially  unchanged  for 
countless  ages,  it  was  thought  that  we  might  well  ex- 
pect to  find  still  surviving  representatives  of  the  earliest 
forms  of  life;  and,  when,  in  a  sample  of  ooze  from 
the  ocean  bottom  which  was  under  microscopic  ex- 
amination, there  was  seen  a  vague,  shapeless,  slimy 
something,  it  was  taken  for  granted  that  the  earliest 
and  simplest  type  of  life  had  been  discovered — a  dif- 
fused   mass    of    unorganized    protoplasm.     Professor 

247 


The  Origin  of  Life 

Huxley  bestowed  upon  the  newly  discovered  creature, 
thus  hailed  as  the  representative  of  the  ancestral  form 
of  all  life,  the  name  Bathybius.  Bathybius,  however, 
was  soon  pretty  thoroughly  discredited.  It  turned  out 
to  be  in  the  main  simply  a  slimy  precipitate  of  gypsum, 
resulting  from  the  action  of  the  strong  alcohol  used 
as  a  preservative  material  upon  the  salts  in  solution  in 
the  sea-water.  It  may  have  consisted  in  part  of  the 
debris  of  various  organisms  that  had  gone  to  pieces. 
Evidently  Bathybius  could  throw  no  light  upon  the  na- 
ture of  the  earliest  organisms  and  the  problem  of  the 
origin  of  life.  Huxley  frankly  acknowledged  that 
Bathybius  was  a  mistake;*  and  that,  I  believe,  is  the 
judgment  of  nearly  all  zoologists.  It  may  be  re- 
marked incidentally  that  the  failure  to  find  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  sea  samples  of  the  primitive  unorganized 
protoplasm  from  which  life  might  be  supposed  to  have 
started,  was  not  the  only  disappointment  connected 
with  the  exploration  of  the  ocean  bottom.  In  general, 
the  expectation  of  finding  there  extremely  archaic 
forms  which  would  throw  light  upon  the  early  stages 
of  the  evolution  of  sub-kingdoms  and  classes  was  dis- 
appointed. The  life  of  the  abysses  seems  for  the  most 
part  not  to  be  of  very  ancient  types,  but  to  consist 
chiefly  of  forms  whose  ancestors  migrated  into  that 
region  of  darkness  from  other  bathymetric  zones.  Ref- 
erence has  already  been  madef  to  the  interesting  sug- 
gestion of  Morris  and  Brooks,  that  life  probably  com- 
menced,  and   most  of  the   main   types   of  life   were 

*  Nature,  vol.  xx,  p.  405.  +  Page  205. 

248 


Bathybius 

evolved,   not  at  the  bottom,   but  at  the  surface,  of 
the  sea. 

It  must  therefore  be  confessed  that  we  have  no  defi- 
nite knowledge  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  life.  The 
belief  in  the  evolutionary  origin  of  life  has  absolutely 
nothing  in  its  support  except  the  force  of  general  anal- 
ogies; and  the  estimate  that  will  be  put  by  different 
thinkers  upon  the  value  of  such  analogies  depends  very 
largely  upon  subjective  conditions.  Conclusions  that 
rest  only  on  analogy  must  be  held  tentatively  and  not 
dogmatically.  Yet  I  believe  that  a  qualified  and  pro- 
visional acceptance  of  the  conclusions  to  which  analogy 
points  is  more  philosophical  than  their  rejection.  When 
we  trace  a  continuous  evolution  from  the  nebula  to 
the  dawn  of  life,  and  again  a  continuous  evolution  from 
the  dawn  of  life  to  the  varied  flora  and  fauna  of  to-day, 
crowned  with  glory  in  the  appearance  of  man  himself, 
we  can  hardly  fail  to  accept  the  suggestion  that  the 
transition  from  the  lifeless  to  the  living  was  itself  a 
process  of  evolution.  Though  the  supposed  instances 
of  spontaneous  generation  all  resolve  themselves  into 
errors  in  experimentation,  though  Bathybius  proves  to 
be  only  precipitated  gypsum,  though  the  power  of 
chemical  synthesis,  in  spite  of  the  vast  progress  it  has 
made,  stops  far  short  of  the  complexity  of  protoplasm, 
though  we  must  confess  ourselves  unable  to  imagine 
a  hypothesis  for  the  origin  of  that  complex  apparatus 
which  the  microscope  has  revealed  to  us  in  the  infini- 
tesimal laboratory  of  the  cell,  are  we  not  compelled  to 
believe  that  the  law  of  continuity  has  not  been  broken, 

249 


The  Origin  of  Life 

and  that  at  least  a  reasonable  hypothesis  in  regard  to 
the  method  of  transition  from  the  lifeless  to  the  living 
may  yet  be  within  reach  of  human  discovery?  That, 
I  believe,  is  to-day  the  attitude  of  most  scientific  men; 
and  that  faith  in  the  evolutionary  origin  of  life,  pro- 
vided it  be  held  tentatively  and  never  asserted  dog- 
matically, seems  to  me  amply  justified.  Whether  in- 
vestigation is  destined  in  the  near  future  to  throw  any 
additional  light  upon  the  question  of  the  origin  of  life, 
it  were  vain  to  prophesy.  It  seems  not  impossible  that 
chemistry  may  throw  some  light  upon  the  origin  of 
the  characteristic  materials  of  the  living  body.  It  is 
a  significant  fact  that  the  phrase,  "chemistry  of  the  car- 
bon compounds,"  has  well-nigh  taken  the  place  of  the 
old  phrase,  "organic  chemistry,"  as  one  after  another 
of  the  compounds  formerly  supposed  to  be  capable  of 
production  only  in  the  living  laboratory  of  the  vegetable 
or  animal  cell  has  been  produced  by  artificial  synthesis. 
It  is  a  long  history  of  progress  from  Wohler's  synthesis 
of  urea  in  1828 — the  first  breach  effected  in  the  wall 
which  partitioned  off  organic  from  inorganic  chemistry 
— to  Schiitzenberger's  synthesis  of  peptone  in  1891. 
Surely  we  must  believe  the  end  is  not  yet  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  chemical  materials  of  the  living  body  and 
their  possible  origin.  A  cell,  indeed,  is  not  merely  a 
minute  quantity  of  protoplasm,  but  an  elaborate  or- 
ganism. Yet  the  nuclear  apparatus  in  different  cells 
exists  in  very  different  stages  of  development,  and  it  is 
not  impossible  that  the  comparative  study  of  the  sim- 
plest forms  of  cell  structure  may  throw  some  light 

250 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

upon  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  that  wondrous 
mechanism.  There  seems  no  reason  to  expect  success 
in  any  experiments  in  the  direction  of  spontaneous 
generation.  The  evolution  of  protoplasm  and  of  cells 
may  have  occupied  long  periods  of  time,  and  there  is 
little  probability  that  protoplasm  and  cells  can  be  manu- 
factured under  the  conditions  of  laboratory  experimen- 
tation.* Though  we  must  confess  ourselves  completely 
ignorant  of  the  method  of  the  origin  of  life,  yet,  if  we 
are  to  choose  between  the  two  alternatives  of  a  belief 
that  the  process  of  the  origin  of  life,  if  known,  would  be 
found  to  be  a  part  of  a  continuous  system  of  evolution, 
and  a  belief  that  that  process  is  utterly  out  of  relation 
with  all  other  known  facts  of  the  universe,  the  scientific 
mind  can  hardly  hesitate  to  choose  the  former. 

THEOLOGICAL   BEARINGS   OF   EVOLUTIONf 

We  must  now  give  our  attention  to  the  effect  of  the 
theory  of  evolution  upon  religious  belief.  We  have 
seen  that  the  first  phase  of  the  evolution  theory  de- 
veloped in  modern  times  was  the  astronomical  phase — 
the  nebular  theory.  The  announcement  of  that  theory 
did  not  occasion  any  very  violent  theological  contro- 
versy. Some  theologians  indeed  declared,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  nebular  theory,  that,  according  to  the  Bible, 
''the  worlds  were  framed  by  the  word  of  God,"!  and 

*  Pearson,  The  Grammar  of  Science^  2d  edition,  p,  349. 

t  Gray,  Darwiniana  ;  Le  Conte,  Evohttion,  and  Its  Relation  to  Religious 
Thought ;  McCosh,  The  Religious  Aspect  0/  Evolution  ;  Schurman,  The  Eth- 
ical Import  0/  Darwinism  ;  Drummond,  The  Ascent  of  Man  ;  Tyler,  The 
Whence  and  the  Whither  0/  Man;  Fiske,  Through  Nature  to  God;  Smyth, 
Through  Science  to  Faith.  X  Hebrews,  xi,  3. 

251 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

not  by  the  law  of  gravitation.  Those  theologians  forgot 
that  the  law  of  gravitation,  like  every  other  law  of 
nature,  is  the  word  of  God.  Nor  did  the  rise  of  evolu- 
tionary doctrine  in  geology  excite  any  violent  theo- 
logical opposition.  Geology,  indeed,  was  bitterly  op- 
posed in  its  earlier  history,  not  because  it  was  supposed 
to  be  contradictory  of  theistic  belief,  or  of  Christian 
belief  in  general,  but  because  it  was  supposed  to  con- 
tradict the  Scripture  text  in  regard  to  the  antiquity 
of  the  earth  and  man ;  and,  with  the  abandonment  of 
the  dogma  of  inerrancy  of  Scripture,  the  conflict  be- 
tween theology  and  geology  is  at  an  end. 

But  the  publication  of  Darwin's  "Origin  of  Species'' 
marked  the  beginning  of  the  most  intense  theologico- 
scientific  controversy  of  our  time.  The  younger  gen- 
eration of  students  to-day  can  hardly  appreciate  the 
agonies  of  terror  with  which  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
was  regarded  by  many  Christians  three  or  four  decades 
ago,  and  the  intense  bitterness  with  which  the  theory 
and  its  advocates  were  denounced.  It  is  true  that  there 
were  some  men  then  sagacious  enough  to  recognize 
that  the  acceptance  of  evolution  would  not  destroy 
theistic  or  Christian  belief.  Very  soon  after  the  publi- 
cation of  Darwin's  book,  Asa  Gray,  Professor  of  Bot- 
any in  Harvard  University,  and,  in  my  judgment,  the 
most  profoundly  philosophic  naturalist  our  country  has 
ever  produced,  wrote  an  essay  entitled,  "Natural  Se- 
lection Not  Inconsistent  with  Natural  Theology."* 
The  bearing  of  evolution  upon  the  theistic  question  is 

*  Atlantic  Monthly^  i860;  Darwiniana.,^.%'j, 


Feelings  Excited  by  Darwin's  Book 

treated  in  that  essay  in  so  masterly  a  fashion  that 
scarcely  anything  more  on  that  point  needs  to  be  said 
to-day.  While  there  were  Christian  men  of  science 
who  accepted  evolution  and  found  it  perfectly  con- 
sistent with  Christian  faith,  there  were  men  more  dis- 
tinctly recognized  as  theologians  who  took  the  same 
philosophical  view.  Prominent  among  these  was 
James  McCosh,  then  President  of  Princeton  Univer- 
sity. Yet  it  was  a  wide-spread  belief,  both  within  and 
without  the  Christian  church,  that,  if  a  belief  in  or- 
ganic evolution  should  be  generally  accepted,  Chris- 
tianity was  doomed  to  extinction.  Of  course  all  that 
is  changed.  An  irenic  era  has  followed  the  period  of 
conflict.  The  curriculum  of  a  theological  seminary  is 
hardly  regarded  as  complete  to-day  without  a  course  of 
lectures  on  the  consistency  of  evolution  with  theistic 
philosophy.  In  this  peaceful  era  it  is  easily  possible 
to  underrate  the  effects  which  the  theory  of  evolution 
must  produce  upon  theological  belief.  Justin  McCar- 
thy, in  his  brilliant,  but  sometimes  rather  flippant, 
^'History  of  Our  Own  Times,"  refers  to  the  violent 
controversy  that  arose  after  the  publication  of  Dar- 
win's book,  and  records  his  opinion  that  the  contro- 
versy was  entirely  unnecessary,  since  ''Darwin's  theory 
might  be  accepted  by  the  most  orthodox  believer  with-, 
out  the  firmness  of  his  faith  moulting  a  feather."  I 
suspect,  however,  that  the  question  whether  a  man  was 
compelled  to  moult  some  feathers  of  his  theological 
plumage  or  not,  would  depend  considerably  upon  what 
might  have  been  the  precise  character  of  the  plumage 

253 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

which  he  wore  before.  It  is  certain  that  some  theo- 
logical beliefs  which  were  very  commonly  held  before 
the  beginning  of  the  epoch  of  evolutionary  thought 
must  be  very  seriously  modified. 

It  is  not,  indeed,  necessary  to  spend  any  time  in 
proving  that  evolution  is  not  atheistic*  Ages  ago,  be- 
fore modern  science  was  dreamed  of.  Saint  Augustine 
distinctly  taught  that  the  theological  idea  of  creation 
included  mediate  as  well  as  immediate  creation — crea- 
tion through  the  operation  of  secondary  causes,  as  well 
as  creation  by  direct  and  processless  fiat.  For  many 
generations  the  communicants  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  many  other  English-speaking  worshipers, 
have  joined  in  the  language  of  the  general  thanksgiv- 
ing, in  which  God  is  praised  "for  our  creation,  preser- 
vation, and  for  all  the  blessings  of  this  life,"  though  I 
suppose  no  one  of  those  worshipers  has  imagined  that 
he  himself  was  brought  into  existence  by  a  direct  fiat 
of  God  without  any  process  of  secondary  causation. 

The  theory  of  evolution  is  indeed  the  implacable  foe 

of  that  sort  of  theistic  philosophy  which  has  been  hap- 

/  pily  satirized  in  the  phrase,  "the  carpenter  God."    The 

evolutionist  cannot  believe  in  a  God  who  once  in  the 

remote  past  built  a  universe,  and  who  now  manipulates 

jt  from  without.     The  evolutionist  cannot  accept  the 

ytheistic  philosophy  which  regards  nature  in  its  ordinary 

/  course    as    self-acting,    and    recognizes    the    presence 

/-...^^and  the  agency  of  God  only  in  unusual  and  startling 

*  See  fuller  discussion  of  the  personality  of  God  and  of  his  relation  to  the 
universe  in  Part  H. 

254 


v; 


Evolution  not    '  1 1 1 1  i^iUi'tl^i 


events.  The  God  who  is  seen  only  in  the  supposed 
gaps  in  the  continuity  of  nature,  is  a  God  in  whom  the 
evolutionist  can  have  no  faith.  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Catechism,  **Who  made  you  ?"  a  smart  boy~^ 
is  said  to  have  answered,  **God  made  me  so  big" — 
measuring  off  on  his  arm  about  what  he  supposed  to- 
be  his  stature  at  the  time  of  birth, — "and  I  grew  the 
rest  myself."  Of  all  that  kind  of  theistic  philosophy 
evolution  is  the  implacable  foe.  But  evolution  is  per- 
fectly in  harmony  with  the  faith  of  ancient  Hebrew 
bards  who  saw  God's  presence  in  all  the  beauty  and 
majesty  of  nature,  who  heard  God's  voice  in  every 
tone  of  nature's  music,  who  knew  no  difference  be- 
tween the  natural  and  the  supernatural  in  a  world 
which  was  everywhere  full  of  God.  The  evolutionist 
can  join  in  the  w^orship  of  One 

"Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns, 
And  the  round  ocean,  and  the  living  air, 
And  the  blue  sky,  and  in  the  mind  of  man :"— ' 

a  God  in  whom  "we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being." 
Nor  need  we  now  spend  any  time  in  discussing  the 
conflict  or  the  harmony  between  evolution,  and  the  sec- 
ond and  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  relation  of 
the  early  chapters  of  Genesis  to  scientific  facts  and  the- 
ories has  been  already  sufficiently  discussed  ;*  and  we 
have  seen  that  the  supposed  necessity  of  reconciliation 
between  scientific  beliefs  and  the  Scripture  text  arose 
only  from  the  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  Bible, 
which  forms  no  part  of  the  catholic  faith  of  the  church, 

*  Page  8i. 

255 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

and  whose  influence  has  been  always  pernicious.  Of 
course  the  evolutionist  does  not  believe  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  Adam  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  nor  in  the 
manufacture  of  Eve  out  of  a  rib,  nor  in  the  historic 
character  of  the  story  of  Eden  in  general.  How  far  the 
story  of  Eden  is  conscious  allegory,  and  how  far  it  is 
legend  erroneously  supposed  to  be  history,  is  a  question 
of  purely  literary  criticism. 

It  is  in  the  department  of  anthropology  that  our  the- 
ological beliefs  are  most  seriously  affected  by  the  the- 
ory of  evolution.  There  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
man  himself,  at  least  as  regards  his  physical  nature,  is 
a  product  of  evolution.  Man  is  an  animal,  a  member 
of  the  sub-kingdom  Vertebrata,  the  class  Mammalia, 
the  order  Primates.  Zoological  classification  has  the 
same  meaning  in  its  application  to  man  as  in  regard  to 
other  organisms.  The  reference  of  man  to  a  sub- 
kingdom  or  class  or  order  expresses  the  degree  of  his 
structural  resemblance  to  other  animals.  The  evidence 
of  evolution  that  is  afforded  by  homologies  of  structure 
is  the  same  in  regard  to  man  as  in  regard  to  other 
vertebrates.  Those  embryological  laws  which  are  so 
strongly  indicative  of  evolution  may  be  amply  illus- 
trated from  the  body  of  man.  In  the  human  embryo, 
the  aorta  branches  into  a  series  of  arches  homologous 
with  the  branchial  arches  of  the  fish,  and  the  pharynx 
develops  a  series  of  pouches  homologous  with  the  gill 
pouches  of  a  shark.*  Man's  body  is  a  perfect  museum 
of  rudimentary  organs,  from  the  rudimentary  muscles 

*  See  page  184. 
256 


Evidences  of  Evolution  of  Man 

that  can  no  longer  prick  up  the  ears,  to  the  rudimentary 
muscles  that  can  no  longer  wag  the  rudimentary  tail; 
from  the  rudimentary  third  eyelid  which  can  no  longer 
brush  dust  from  the  eyeball,  to  the  rudimentary  in- 
testinal caecum,  whose  only  known  function  is  appendi- 
citis. It  is  often  said  that  there  are  no  intermediate 
links  between  man  and  any  ape-like  form.  It  is  in- 
deed true  that  we  cannot  trace  a  series  of  fine  grada- 
tions between  man  and  any  ape-like  form,  but  it  is  not 
true  that  we  have  no  evidence  of  gradation.  Among 
the  very  few  human  skulls  which  are  certainly  or  prob- 
ably of  Quaternary  age,  several  bear  a  character  more 
simian  than  is  typical  of  any  existing  race.  In  those 
skulls,  the  low,  retreating  forehead,  and  the  very 
strongly  developed  superciliary  ridges,  give  to  the  skull 
an  extraordinarily  simian  aspect.  So  long  as  the 
Neanderthal  skull,  the  earliest  discovered  of  this  type, 
stood  alone,  it  could  reasonably  be  supposed  to  be  an 
individual  exception,  abnormal  or  even  pathological. 
But  it  is  simply  incredible  that  so  large  a  proportion 
of  the  known  fossil  skulls  as  exhibit  characters  similar 
to  those  of  the  Neanderthal  skull  can  be  merely  indi- 
vidual exceptions.  The  fragment  of  a  skull  found  a 
few  years  ago  in  Java  presents  the  simian  characters  in 
decidedly  greater  degree  even  than  the  Neanderthal 
skull.  So  strongly  simian,  indeed,  is  the  aspect  of  the 
Java  skull,  that  some  anatomists  and  paleontologists 
have  considered  it  the  most  man-like  of  apes,*  rather 

*  It  was  described  by  its  discoverer  under  the  name  Pithecanthropus  erectus. 
See  page  77. 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 


than,  as  seems  more  just,  the  most  ape-hke  of  men. 
A  skull  in  regard  to  which  able  anatomists  can  dispute 
whether  it  is  human  or  simian  is  certainly  in  some 
degree  an  answer  to  the  demand  for  the  production  of 
the  "missing  link."  The  facts  seem  to  render  it  well- 
nigh  certain  that  in  Quaternary  time  there  was  de- 
veloped a  race  of  men  more  simian  in  type  than  even 

the  lowest  race  of  sav- 
ages now  existing,  and 
ranging  from  the  East 
Indian  Archipelago  to 
western  Europe.  There 
is  indeed  a  wide  gap 
between  even  the  Java 
skull  and  that  of  the 
highest  of  the  anthro- 
poid apes.  As  nearly 
as  can  be  estimated  in 
the  fragmentary  condi- 
tion of  the  Java  skull, 
its  cranial  capacity  must 
have  been  not  much 
less  than  twice  that  of 
the  gorilla,  though  the 
weight  of  the  gorilla  is  considerably  greater  than 
that  of  man.*  It  is,  of  course,  by  no  means  cer- 
tain that  any  very  fine  gradations  between  man  and 

*  Dubois  estimates  the  cranial  capacity  of  Pithecanthropus  as  somewhat 
more  than  900  cubic  centimeters.  Smithsonian  Report^  1898,  p.  449.  The 
cranial  capacity  of  adult  gorillas  varies  from  about  400  to  about  600  cubic 
centimeters.  The  capacity  of  normal  adult  human  skulls  varies  from  about 
1,000  to  about  1,800  cubic  centimeters. 

258 


Fig.  12. — Upper  surface  of  skull 
of  Pithecanthropus  erectus. 
From  Keane's  "Ethnology." 


The  Missing  Link 

his  simian  ancestry  ever  existed.  We  have  already 
seen*  that  there  is  reason  to  beheve  that  the  very  large 
variations  which  occasionally  occur  have  played  a  con- 
siderable role  in  the  history  of  evolution,  and  it  is  not 
at  all  unlikely  that  man  himself  may  have  originated 


Fig.  13. — Profiles  of  human  and  simian  skulls.  The  skulls  are 
all  reduced  to  the  same  length,  and  the  base  line  extends  from 
the  glabella  (at  the  left  of  the  figure)  to  the  posterior  margin 
of  the  foramen  magnum  (at  the  right).  1,  Papuan  (modern); 
2,  fossil  skull  from  Spy,  in  Pjelgium  ("Spy,  No.  II");  3,  fossil 
skull  from  Neanderthal;  4,  Pithecanthropus  erectus;  5,  chim- 
panzee. Taken  (with  modifications)  from  Le  Conte's  "Ele- 
ments of  Geology." 

by  the  sudden  appearance  of  variations  of  an  extraor- 
dinary character.  The  fact  should,  moreover,  be  con- 
sidered, that  there  has  been  as  yet  no  very  thorough 
geological  exploration  in  any  region  which  can  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  be  the  cradle  of  the  human  race. 

*  Page  224. 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

That  man  did  not  originate  in  western  Europe  is  sub- 
stantially certain.  From  this  point  of  view  it  is  an  ex- 
ceedingly significant  fact  that  the  most  ape-like  human 
skull  thus  far  discovered  has  been  found  in  the  East 
Indian  Archipelago,  the  land  of  the  orang  and  the 
gibbon. 

Assuming,  then,  that  man  is  a  product  of  evolution, 
what  modifications  must  we  make  in  theological  be- 
liefs concerning  man  ?  In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  said 
that  the  effect  of  the  acceptance  of  evolution  is  simply 
to  show  that  the  origin  of  the  earliest  human  beings 
was  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  their  successors.  In 
regard  to  all  subsequent  generations  of  human  beings, 
there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  each  individual  has 
originated,  as  regards  his  physical  organism,  by  a  proc- 
ess of  secondary  causation  which  is  pretty  well  under- 
stood. But  what  is  the  origin  of  the  soul  or  spirit — 
of  the  something,  however  it  may  be  named,  assumed 
as  the  substratum  of  thought  and  feeling  and  will  ?  In 
all  the  Christian  centuries,  two  different  views  have 
been  maintained  among  theologians  in  regard  to  the 
origin  of  the  soul  of  each  individual.  The  doctrine 
which,  at  least  in  modern  times,  has  been  generally 
considered  the  most  strictly  orthodox,  is  the  doctrine 
of  creationism.  According  to  this  view,  while  the  body 
of  the  individual  is  evolved  by  a  well-known  process 
of  secondary  causation,  the  soul  of  every  individual  is 
created  by  a  direct  fiat  of  the  Deity.  The  soul  is  in  its 
origin  thus  independent  of  the  body  with  which  it  is 
associated;    but,  by  the  decree  of  the  Creator,  it  is 

260 


\ 


Creationism  and  Traducianism 

mysteriously  united  with  the  body,  at  some  time  be- 
fore, at,  or  after  birth,  and  remains  united  to  the  body 
during  this  earthly  life.  As  the  soul  is  independent  of 
the  body  in  its  nature  and  origin,  it  may  be  supposed  to 
survive  after  the  dissolution  of  the  body.  The  other 
view,  which  has  been  maintained  by  theologians  of 
repute  and  influence  in  every  age  of  the  church,  is  the 
doctrine  of  traducianism.  It  maintains  that  the  indi- 
vidual inherits  not  simply  his  physical  organism,  but 
also  his  spiritual  nature,  from  his  parents.  Some  of 
the  older  traducianists  conceived  the  doctrine  in  such 
form  as  to  involve  a  dormant  pre-existence  of  indi- 
vidual souls  from  the  beginning  of  human  history.  Ac- 
cording to  this  phase  of  the  traducianist  doctrine,  the 
souls  of  the  whole  human  race  came  into  existence  at 
the  time  of  the  creation  of  Adam,  were  stored  up  in 
his  body,  and  have  been  gradually  distributed  In  sub- 
sequent generations.  A  theory  so  grotesque  it  is  need- 
less to  discuss.  Enough  to  say  that  no  such  doctrine 
can  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  the  twentieth  century. 
The  only  form  in  which  the  traducianist  doctrine  can  be 
held  at  present,  is  that  of  an  actual  procreation  of  the 
soul — a  procreation  of  that  essence,  whatever  it  may 
be,  in  which  inhere  the  spiritual  faculties  of  human 
nature.  Thus  conceived,  I  believe  that  traducianism 
leads  by  a  logical  necessity  to  some  sort  of  monistic  the- 
ory of  human  nature.  Every  conception  we  can  form  of 
procreation,  generation,  or  reproduction,  in  any  mode 
whatever,  involves  the  idea  of  the  division  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  parent.     It  is  a  part  of  the  parent  that  is 

261 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

converted  into  the  new  organism,  in  every  form  of  re- 
production, alike  in  the  animal  and  in  the  vegetable 
kingdom ;  and  any  process  analogous  to  procrea- 
tion in  the  case  of  an  indivisible  unit,  such  as  the 
human  soul  has  generally  been  assumed  to  be  by 
those  who  have  held  the  dualistic  view,  seems  utterly 
unthinkable. 

The  question  of  the  origin  of  man  is  therefore 
closely  connected  with  the  metaphysical  cjuestion  of 
the  unity  or  plurality  of  essence  in  human  nature.  The 
fundamental  fact  which  any  theory  of  human  nature 
is  bound  to  recognize  is  that  the  experience  of  thought, 
feeling,  and  will,  which  constitutes  the  conscious  life 
of  man,  is  in  some  way  connected  wath  the  form  of 
organized  matter  which  we  call  the  human  body,  and 
especially  with  the  chief  ganglionic  center  of  the  nerv- 
ous system,  the  brain.  Every  physiologist  believes  that 
every  state  of  consciousness  is  correlated  with  some 
definite  molecular  change  in  the  matter  of  the  nervous 
system,  in  such  sense  that  a  being  possessed  of  suf- 
ficient intelligence  could  infer  the  character  of  the  state 
of  consciousness  from  the  knowledge  of  the  molecular 
change,  or  infer  the  molecular  change  from  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  state  of  consciousness. 

Some  psychologists  and  philosophers  have  indeed 
denied  that  there  is  evidence  of  such  a  correlation.  I 
quote  from  a  text-book  of  psychology,  which  has  been 
widely  used  in  our  schools  and  colleges:*  "We  grant 
that  the  landscape  which  we  see  must  first  be  pictured 

*  Porter,  Elements  of  Intellectual  Science,  p.  19. 
262 


Mind  and  Brain 

on  the  retina.  But  what  change  or  affection  of  the 
material  organism  occurs  when  the  soul,  at  the  sight 
of  this  landscape,  images  another  like  it,  calls  up  by 
memory  a  similar  scene,  or  by  creative  acts  of  its 
own  constructs  picture  after  picture?  or  what  bodily 
changes  precede  desire  and  disgust,  hope  and  fear,  at 
these  memories  and  creations?  No  such  changes  have 
ever  been  discerned."  That  the  cerebral  changes  which 
accompany  the  changing  states  of  consciousness  have 
not  been  discerned,  is  very  certain.  Men  are  not  accus- 
tomed to  do  a  large  amount  of  thinking,  with  the  roof 
of  the  skull  removed,  and  with  the  brain  placed  under 
a  microscope  for  the  examination  of  its  histological 
changes,  or  subjected  to  chemical  reagents  to  detect 
the  oxidations  or  other  processes  which  may  be  going 
on  in  the  minute  laboratories  of  its  cells.  But  that  such 
changes  are  going  on  in  connection  with  every  process 
of  thought  or  emotion  is  certain.  When  the  mind  be- 
comes increasingly  active,  we  have  good  reason  to 
believe  that  an  increased  supply  of  blood  goes  to  the 
brain,  and  an  increased  amount  of  chemical  change 
takes  place  in  that  organ.  The  chemical  changes  are 
undoubtedly  accompanied  by  histological  changes.* 
The  machinery  is  working  vigorously,  though  the  de- 
tails of  its  working  are  beyond  our  view.  It  is  true  in- 
deed that  the  induction  of  a  correlation  in  detail  be- 
tween particular  states  of  consciousness  and  particular 
changes  in  the  brain  goes  far  beyond  the  reach  of 
actual  or  possible  proof  by  observation  or  experiment. 

*  Page  140. 
263 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

But  this  is  no  more  than  is  true  of  the  doctrine  of  con- 
servation of  energy  and  of  the  Newtonian  law  of  gravi- 
tation. The  broad  inductions  which  are  the  most 
valuable  results  of  scientific  investigation,  are  based 
upon  the  indications  of  experience,  but  transcend  the 
range  of  experience.  The  acceptance  of  ''psycho-phys- 
ical parallelism,"  as  a  generalization  of  the  relations 
of  two  orders  of  phenomena,  is  amply  justified,*  what- 
ever may  be  thought  of  the  metaphysical  doctrines 
which  the  phrase  is  often  understood  as  implying. 

But,  however  intimate  may  be  the  correlation  be- 
tween states  of  consciousness  and  cerebral  changes,  the 
two  orders  of  phenomena  are  utterly  disparate  and  in- 
commensurable. The  brain  and  nerves  are  matter,  and 
their  molecules  are  subject  to  the  same  physical  and 
chemical  laws  as  other  material  molecules.  All  cere- 
bral changes  must  be  assumed  to  conform  to  the  law 
of  conservation  of  energy.f  In  the  last  analysis,  the 
cerebral  changes  which  are  correlated  with  states  of 
consciousness  are  simply  motions  of  certain  portions 
of  matter  through  certain  distances  in  certain  times. 
They  are  theoretically  capable  of  being  completely 
formulated  in  terms  of  mass  and  velocity.  But  a  state 
of  consciousness  has  no  spatial  relations  whatever;  and 
to  speak  of  formulating  a  state  of  consciousness  in 
terms  of  mass  and  velocity  is  absolute  nonsense. 

A  philosophical  theory  of  human  nature  must  rec- 
ognize, on  the  one  hand,  the  correlation  between  states 
of  consciousness   and   cerebral   changes,   and,   on   the 

*  Baldwin,  Development  and  Evolution^  p.  lo.  t  Page  139 

264 


Materialism,  Spiritualism,  Dualism,  Monism 

other,  the  disparateness  and  incommensurability  of  the 
two  orders  of  phenomena. 

The  metaphysical  theories  which  profess  to  formu- 
late the  mutual  relations  of  the  physical  and  the  psy- 
chical in  man  may  be  classed  under  the  four  titles  of 
materialism,  spiritualism,  dualism,  and  monism.* 

Materialism  assumes  that  the  physical  organism  is 
the  one  real  substance  in  which  both  orders  of  phe- 
nomena inhere.  Psychical  activities  must  be  consid- 
ered as  functions  of  the  brain.  Whatever  cannot  be 
formulated  in  terms  of  physical  change  is  repudiated, 
slurred  over,  or  ignored.  A  characteristic  expression 
of  the  position  of  extreme  materialism  is  the  statement 
of  Karl  Vogt : — "As  contraction  is  the  function  of  the 
muscles,  and  as  the  kidneys  secrete  urine,  so,  and  in 
the  same  way,  does  the  brain  generate  thoughts,  move- 
ments, and  feelings."  If  this  language  means  any- 
thing, it  seems  to  imply  that  thoughts  and  feelings  are 
a  form  of  matter  or  a  form  of  motion.  The  two  alter- 
natives are  equally  absurd.  Spiritualism  Is  the  exact 
contrary  of  materialism.  *Tt  claims  that  the  so-called 
body  has  only  a  phenomenal  existence ;  the  body  is  but 
a  series  of  phenomena  that  are  indeed  of  a  special  or- 
der, but  are  phenomena  of  the  reality  called  mind,  and 
are  to  be  referred  to  such  reality  as  their  sole  ground."f 
While  this  mode  of  thought  is  satisfactory  to  a  few 
metaphysicians,  most  men  feel  that  it  affords  no  ade- 

*  These  words,  all  of  which  have  been  used  by  different  writers  with  some- 
what different  meanings,  are  employed  here  in  the  senses  in  which  they  are 
defined  by  Professor  Ladd,  in  his  Philosophy  of  Mind ^  ch.  ix,  x. 

\  Ladd,  Philosophy  of  Mind ^  p.  288. 

265 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

quate  recognition  of  the  facts  of  experience.  To  re- 
gard the  external  universe  as  a  mode  of  activity  of 
the  Divine  Mind  may  be  legitimate.  But  to  make  our 
bodies  and  material  things  in  general  phenomena  of 
our  own  minds  is  felt  by  most  men  to  be  a  contradic- 
tion of  their  inalienable  belief  in  the  objective  reality 
of  the  universe.  Dualism  is  the  philosophy  which  is 
in  general  naively  accepted  by  men  of  common  sense 
who  have  studied  neither  science  nor  philosophy ;  and, 
in  spite  of  all  its  difficulties,  it  is  held  by  many  of  the 
most  philosophical  thinkers.  Certainly  the  most  ob- 
vious way  of  formulating  the  significance  of  the  dual- 
ity of  phenomena  presented  in  human  experience  is  by 
the  supposition  of  a  duality  of  essence.  Monism  aims 
to  recognize  the  duality  of  experience  which  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  dualism.  It  does  not,  like  materialism, 
slur  over  the  facts  of  subjective  experience;  nor  does 
it,  like  spiritualism,  seem  to  make  the  objective  world 
an  illusion — a  creation  of  the  mind  itself.  But  the 
monist  is  impressed  with  the  difficulty  of  the  conception 
of  the  interaction  of  two  entities  distinct  in  nature  and 
origin.  Monism,  accordingly,  conceives  the  two  or- 
ders of  phenomena  that  constitute  our  dual  life  as 
inhering  in  a  single  essence.  *The  ego  is  not  com- 
pounded of  body  and  soul,  but  it  is  a  determinate  stage 
of  evolution  of  being,  which,  contemplated  from  dif- 
ferent standpoints,  divides  itself  into  bodily  and  spir- 
itual being."* 

*  Wundt,  Vorlesungen  uber  die  Menschen-  und  Thierseele^  vol.  i,  p.  293. 
The  sentence  quoted  stands  as  the  motto  of  Romanes'  essay  on  Monism  {Mind 
and  Motion^  and  Monism^  p.  39). 

2$6 


Dualism  and  Monism 

The  belief  has  been  somewhat  generally  entertained 
that  all  ethical  and  religious  doctrines  require  as  their 
logical  basis  a  dualistic  conception  of  human  nature; 
and  particularly  that,  unless  man  possesses  a  spirit 
altogether  distinct  from  matter  in  nature  and  origin, 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  moral  responsibility,  and 
no  hope  of  immortality.  In  this  belief  men  have  been 
anxious  to  find,  somewhere  between  the  realm  of  in- 
organic matter  and  the  realm  of  human  life,  a  chasm 
so  wide  as  to  compel  the  admission  of  a  distinct  entity 
in  human  life  utterly  apart  from  matter.  Under  the 
influence  of  this  line  of  thought,  theologians  have  gen- 
erally regarded  with  fear  and  aversion  those  scientific 
facts  or  theories  which  suggest  the  idea  of  a  continuity 
through  all  grades  of  existence,  from  inorganic  matter 
to  man.  The  doctrine  of  the  correlation  of  physical  and 
vital  forces,  which  we  have  considered  in  the  discussion 
of  the  general  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy,* 
has  been  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  as  tending  to 
destroy  the  line  of  demarcation  between  living  and 
non-living  matter.  In  the  middle  of  the  last  century, 
when  the  question  of  the  spontaneous  generation  of 
bacteria  was  being  earnestly  investigated,  it  was  felt 
by  many  religious  men  that  the  establishment  of  spon- 
taneous generation  would  overthrow  all  ethical  and 
religious  faith.  From  the  same  standpoint,  the  belief 
in  the  evolutionary  origin  of  life,  now  held  by  many 
scientific  men  upon  the  more  general  ground  of  the 
analogies  of  nature,f  seems  as  objectionable  as  the 

*  Page  136.  t  Page  249. 

267 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

same  belief  when  based  upon  the  supposed  result  of 
experiment. 

It  is  obvious  that  a  belief  in  the  evolutionary  origin 
of  man  involves  no  absolute  logical  contradiction  of  the 
most  orthodox  dualism  in  philosophy  and  creationism 
in  theology.  Evolution  logically  demands  only  that  the 
origin  of  the  earliest  human  beings  should  be  acknowl- 
edged to  be  the  same  as  that  of  their  successors.  The 
dualist  is  perfectly  at  liberty  to  maintain  that,  in  the 
case  of  the  earliest  human  beings,  as  in  the  case  of  their 
successors,  a  body  was  developed  by  a  process  of  evolu- 
tion, and  a  spirit  created  by  a  fiat  of  Deity  was  united 
with  that  body  when  it  had  attained  the  suitable  stage 
of  development.  There  is,  then,  no  logical  contradic- 
tion between  the  doctrine  of  evolution  and  the  most 
orthodox  belief  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  origin  of 
that  substratum  wherein  inhere  the  spiritual  endow- 
ments of  humanity. 

Nevertheless  I  cannot  escape  the  conviction  that  the 
tendency  of  evolutionary  thought  is  decidedly  towards 
monism ;  and  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  longer 
a  man  has  been  a  believer  in  evolution,  and  the  more 
completely  the  cells  and  fibers  of  his  cerebrum  have 
grown  into  adjustment  with  that  idea,  or  (substituting 
a  psychological  for  a  physiological  expression  of  the 
fact)  the  more  completely  his  ideas  on  other  subjects 
have  become  correlated  with  the  idea  of  evolution,  the 
less  likely  is  he  to  be  satisfied  with  the  conception  of  a 
spirit  created  in  absolute  independence  of  the  evolution 
of  the  body,  and,  in  some  utterly  inscrutable  manner, 

268 


Evolution  Tends  to  Monism 

before,  at,  or  after  birth,  attached  to  the  body.  The 
longer  a  man  has  been  an  evolutionist,  the  more 
incongruous  appears  the  notion  of  an  arbitrary  con- 
junction of  entities  utterly  distinct  in  nature  and  in 
origin. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  theory  of  dualism,  as  held 
by  some  recent  philosophers  who  are  thorough  evolu- 
tionists, takes  on  a  quasi-monistic  type.  Thus  Lotze, 
though  he  finds  himself  constrained  to  adopt  a  dualistic 
conception  in  order  to  account  for  the  unity  of  con- 
sciousness, makes  the  origin  of  the  soul  a  gradual  proc- 
ess. "So  long  as  the  soul  was  regarded  as  indivisible 
substance,  it  could  only  be  supposed  to  enter  the  body 
at  a  single  instant  and  in  its  entirety;  whereas,  if  we 
renounce  these  ideas  of  an  external  conjunction,  we 
need  no  longer  wish  to  fix  the  moment  at  which  the 
soul  enters  into  a  development  which  at  first  is  sup- 
posed to  produce  only  physical  actions.  There  is  noth- 
ing to  prevent  us  from  looking  at  the  formation  of  the 
soul  as  an  extended  process  in  time,  a  process  in  which 
the  Absolute  gradually  gives  a  further  form  to  its 
creation."*  Professor  Stumpf,  while  keenly  criticizing 
the  difficulties  of  monism,  verges  yet  more  closely  upon 
monism :  'T  would  even  find  no  serious  difficulty  in 
the  assumption,  that  psychical  life  (soul)  was  pro- 
duced by  organic  processes  (organic  material)  in  par- 
ticular stages  of  their  development,  and  is  even  now 
produced  in  the  development  of  every  individual. "f 

*  Melaphyst'c,  English  translation,  2d  edition,  vol.  ii,  p.  184. 

I  Eroffnungsrede^  Third  International  Congress  for  Psychology. 

269 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

This  is  certainly  ver}^  far  from  the  old-fashioned  dual- 
ism and  creationism.* 

Certainly  there  are  not  wanting  strong  indications 
that  the  psychical  endowments  of  man  are,  like  his 
physical  characteristics,  the  result  of  a  process  of  evo- 
lution. As  we  rise  from  the  lowest  unicellular  or- 
ganisms, we  find  complexity  of  structure  and  com- 
plexity of  function  advancing  pari  passu.  Particularly 
we  find  those  functions  which  seem  to  indicate  intelli- 
gence advancing  pari  passu  with  the  development  of 
the  nervous  system.  In  the  cerebral  hemispheres  of 
man  we  find  a  ganglionic  apparatus  far  surpassing  in 
delicacy  and  complexity  that  of  any  other  animal,  and 
in  correlation  therewith  we  find  man  manifesting  an 
unequaled  range  and  variety  of  psychical  function. 

It  is  not  by  any  means  easy  to  formulate  the  psy- 
chical differences  between  man  and  brute.  The  whole 
subject  of  comparative  psychology  is  profoundly  dif- 
ficult, since,  in  the  study  of  brute  psychology,  we  are 
necessarily  destitute  of  that  light  of  consciousness 
which  is  the  "master  light  of  all  our  seeing"  in  human 
psychology.  We  cannot  even  demonstrate  the  falsity 
of  the  position  which  Descartes  and  some  other  phi- 
losophers have  held,  that  brutes,  even  the  highest,  are 
absolutely  destitute  of  consciousness;  that  their  ap- 
parent manifestations  of  intelligence  are  only  apparent; 
that  the  pathetic  cry  of  a  wounded  dog  differs  from 
the  cry  of  the. toy  dogs  which  children  pinch,  only  in 
being  produced  by  a  mechanism  more  delicate  and  com- 

*  See  also  Ladd,  Philosophy  oj  Mind^  p.  363. 
270 


Difficulty  of  Comparative  Psychology 

plex,  both  mechanisms  being  ahke  unconscious.  But, 
though  that  view  is  not  demonstrably  false,  it  has  never 
commended  itself  to  many  thinkers  as  probable.  The 
actions  of  the  higher  mammals  are  so  much  like  our 
own  that  it  seems  immensely  probable  that  those  ac- 
tions have  their  root  in  psychical  states  essentially  sim- 
ilar to  ours.  And  when  we  attempt,  on  the  basis  of 
inference  drawn  -  from  outward  actions,  to  discrim- 
inate the  range  of  psychical  faculty  common  to  brute 
and  man  from  that  which  is  peculiar  to  man,  it  becomes 
obvious  that  clear  delimitation  is  difficult  or  impossible. 
Again,  the  endowments  characteristic  of  humanity 
manifest  themselves  not  all  at  once,  but  gradually,  in 
the  life  of  the  individual  and  in  the  life  of  the  race. 
The  new-born  infant  manifests  none  of  the  character- 
istic mental  endowments  of  humanity.  Months  must 
pass  in  his  development  before  he  is  capable  of  any 
action  distinctively  human.  The  phrase  which  we  so 
constantly  use  in  regard  to  the  early  history  of  our 
race,  "the  infancy  of  humanity,"  is  far  more  than  a 
figure  of  speech.  It  recognizes  the  truth,  confirmed 
by  all  sources  of  evidence,  in  regard  to  the  prehistoric 
condition  of  humanity,  that  the  dawn  of  distinctively 
human  endowments  was  gradual  in  the  race  as  in  the 
individual.  The  development  of  psychical  faculties  in 
the  human  individual,  so  far  as  they  are  common  to 
man  and  brute,  seems  to  follow  the  same  order  that  is 
shown  in  the  succession  of  animal  forms  from  those 
low  in  the  scale  to  the  highest.  In  other  words,  in 
psychical  endowment  there  seems  to  be  the  same  paral- 

271 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

lelism  between  ontogeny  and  phylogeny  which  exists 
in  respect  to  physical  characteristics,  and  which  has 
been  referred  to*  as  affording  strong  evidence  of  the 
theory  of  evolution  in  general.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
why  that  parallelism  of  ontogeny  and  phylogeny  does 
not  have  the  same  significance  in  regard  to  psychical 
as  in  regard  to  physical  characteristics. 

If  we  were  acquainted  with  no  creatures  between 
inorganic  matter  and  man,  there  would  be  little  room 
for  doubt  that  the  dualistic  philosophy  would  best 
formulate  the  facts  of  our  experience.  But  the  series 
of  gradations  afforded  by  the  lower  orders  of  life  in- 
troduces great  perplexity  in  the  application  of  that  phi- 
losophy. How  much  of  the  group  of  characters  which 
distinguish  man  from  inorganic  matter  shall  we  at- 
tribute to  the  presence  of  a  soul  or  spirit?  and  how 
many  of  the  other  creatures  on  earth,  if  any,  shall  we 
suppose  to  be  endowed  with  such  an  immaterial  entity? 
Three  possible  alternatives  present  themselves  : — 
I.  We  may  suppose  that  man  alone  has  a  soul,  and 
we  may  consider  as  diagnostic  of  its  presence  the 
higher,  supersensuous  range  of  mental  life  which  seems 
to  be  peculiar  to  man.  Theologically,  this  view  is 
convenient,  as  furnishing  a  plausible  ground  for  the  as- 
sertion of  moral  responsibility  and  immortality  as  be- 
longing to  man  alone.  But  we  are  brought  into  per- 
plexity on  the  psychological  side,  when  w^e  attempt  to 
deal  with  the  fact  that  the  actions  of  the  higher  ani- 
mals are  so  similar  to  our  own  as  to  render  it  probable 

*  Page  183. 

272 


What  are  the  Attributes  of  Soul? 

that  they  have  to  some  extent  the  same  psychical  facul- 
ties. If  we  assume  that  in  man  the  higher  psychical 
faculties  belong  to  the  spirit  and  the  lower  ones  to  the 
body,  we  contradict  the  testimony  of  consciousness  to 
the  unity  of  our  psychical  life.  If  we  assume  that  sen- 
sation, association,  instinct,  and  other  psychical  facul- 
ties which  appear  to  be  common  to  man  and  brute,  are 
functions  of  spirit  in  man  and  of  body  in  brute,  we 
attribute  phenomena  that  appear  identical  to  different 
causes.  On  both  these  suppositions  we  admit  that  mat- 
ter may  be  conscious,  and  so  undermine  the  foundation 
of  dualism.  There  remains  the  alternative  of  denying 
that  brutes  are  conscious.  But  few  have  the  hardihood 
to  take  that  position. 

2.  We  may  suppose  that  all  animals  have  souls,  and 
we  may  consider  consciousness  as  the  characteristic  of 
soul.  This  would  seem  very  plausible  if  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  animal  kingdom  were  limited  to  those  ani- 
mals which  considerably  resemble  ourselves.  There 
does  seem,  indeed,  a  chasm  of  inconceivable  breadth 
between  the  conscious  and  intelligent  life  of  a  man,  or 
even  of  a  dog,  and  the  unconscious  life  of  a  tree.  But, 
as  our  knowledge  of  the  kingdoms  of  animate  nature 
becomes  more  complete,  we  recognize  that  animal  in- 
telligence is  a  thing  of  infinite  gradations.  The  lowest 
animals  show  no  more  sign  of  intelligence  than  the 
lowest  plants.  Indeed,  there  is  absolutely  no  line  of 
demarcation  between  the  lowest  animals  and  the  lowest 
plants.  There  is  no  character  which  can  be  affirmed 
to  be  diagnostic  of  the  two  kingdoms,  and  it  is  only 

273 


or  THE 


UN/V£RS/TY  ] 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

arbitrarily  and  conventionally  that  some  of  the  lowest 
organisms  are  parceled  out  between  the  botanists  and 
the  zoologists.  From  the  simplicity  and  apparent  un- 
consciousness of  unicellular  life  to  the  complexity  and 
intelligence  of  mammalian  life,  the  progress  is  by  an 
indefinite  series  of  gradations.  Nowhere  can  we  draw 
a  sharp  line  of  demarcation,  and  say,  on  one  side  is 
unintelligent,  on  the  other  intelligent,  life. 

3.  We  may  suppose  that  all  living  things,  vegetable 
as  well  as  animal,  have  souls;  and  we  may  consider 
life  as  characteristic  of  soul.  A  plausible  argument, 
indeed,  has  been  advanced  by  Professor  Ward*  for 
the  belief  that  plants  have  some  rudimentary  form  of 
consciousness.  The  forms  of  life  from  which  both 
plants  and  animals  originated,  along  divergent  lines  of 
evolution,  w^ere  in  all  probability  possessed  (like  most 
animals)  of  the  function  of  locomotion,  though  capable 
(like  most  plants)  of  feeding  on  inorganic  materials. 
If  motion  in  the  lower  animals  is  to  be  considered  a 
sign  of  consciousness,  then  the  ancestors  of  plants  must 
have  been  conscious.  Hence  it  may  be  imagined  that 
some  vague  trace  of  consciousness  survives  in  their  de- 
scendants. It  is  of  course  as  impossible  to  demonstrate 
the  absence  of  consciousness  in  a  monad  or  an  oak  as 
to  demonstrate  its  presence  in  a  dog  or  an  ape.  But  a 
belief  in  the  consciousness  of  unicellular  organisms  cer- 
tainly rests  on  pretty  shadowy  foundations.  In  the 
structure  and  functions  of  a  unicellular  organism,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  any  more  reason  for  postulating  the  ex- 

*  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism^  vol.  i,  p.  287. 
274 


1 


Theory  of  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man 

istence  of  a  distinct  spiritual  entity  residing  in  the 
organism,  than  in  the  structure  of  a  crystal  or  the  action 
of  a  magnet.  Moreover,  it  should  be  noticed  that  any 
argument  for  a  faith  in  immortality  which  may  be 
drawn  from  a  dualistic  philosophy  is  of  very  doubtful 
theological  value,  if,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  it  requires 
us  to  claim  immortality  for  toads  and  toadstools, 
monads  and  microbes.  An  argument  which  proves  too 
much  proves  nothing. 

In  the  perplexity  as  to  the  question  where,  if  any- 
where, a  line  is  to  be  drawn  between  soul-endowed  man 
and  soulless  inorganic  matter,  one  is  naturally  reminded 
of  the  notion  of  a  plurality  of  souls — vegetative,  sensi- 
tive, rational — held  by  the  medieval  schoolmen.  A 
modification  of  that  view  has  been  in  recent  years 
somewhat  discussed  in  theological  circles.  The  an- 
tithesis between  if^vxrj  and  irvevfia  and  their  respective 
derivatives  in  several  passages  of  Paul's  Epistles*  has 
given  some  support  to  a  supposed  Biblical  philosophy 
which  asserts  for  man  a  "tripartite"  constitution,  as 
body,  soul,  and  spirit.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  Paul  intended  to  teach  any  definite  system  of 
metaphysics;  and,  if  he  did  have  such  an  intention,  it 
would  be  important  only  to  those  who  hold  that  the 
inspiration  of  the  apostles  made  them  inerrant. 

The  alternatives  for  the  philosophical  thinker  seem 
to  be  dualism  and  monism,  but  with  a  third  alternative 
of  suspended  judgment — agnosticism.  Certain  it  is 
that  there  are  three  seeming  interruptions  in  the  con- 

*  I  Thess.,  V,  23 ;  I  Cor.,  ii,  14,  15 ;  xv,  46. 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

tinuity  of  nature,  as  traced  by  our  present  knowledge — 
between  non-living  and  living,  between  unconscious 
and  conscious,  between  non-human  and  human.  We 
have  no  experimental  evidence  of  the  conversion  of 
non-living  into  living  matter,  or  of  the  origin  of  living 
beings  otherwise  than  by  normal  processes  of  repro- 
duction. However  closely  correlated  cerebral  changes 
and  states  of  consciousness  may  be,  the  two  classes  of 
phenomena  are  utterly  disparate,  and  we  can  conceive 
of  no  bridge  spanning  the  chasm  between  them.  How- 
ever impossible  it  may  be  to  formulate  the  psycholog- 
ical differences  between  brute  and  man,  there  is  a  chasm 
of  measureless  breadth  between  the  psychical  life  of 
the  brute,  and  the  language  and  literature,  the  science 
and  philosophy,  the  history  and  politics,  the  morality 
and  religion,  of  man.  The  case  would  be  clearer  for 
dualism  if  there  were  one  chasm  instead  of  three. 

It  seems  unmistakable  that  the  tendency  of  biolog- 
ical thought  in  general,  and  evolutionary  thought  in 
particular,  at  the  present  time,  is  towards  monism. 
But  that  fact  is  very  far  from  conclusively  establishing 
the  truth  of  a  monistic  philosophy.  The  doctrine  of 
evolution  in  its  modern  form  has  been  before  the  minds 
of  men  so  short  a  time  that  its  real  significance  has 
not  been  adequately  comprehended,  and  its  correla- 
tion with  other  elements  of  knowledge  and  thought 
has  not  been  thoroughly  worked  out.  The  present 
tendency  toward  monism  may  be  simply  an  example 
of  the  crude  and  premature  philosophizing  which  re- 
sults from  the  dominance  in  thought  of  a  new  idea  as 

276 


Psychology  the  Basis  of  Ethics 

yet  imperfectly  comprehended.  Whether  the  move- 
ment of  the  world's  thought  towards  monism  is  a  cur- 
rent destined  to  go  steadily  onward,  or  a  tide  which 
will  flow  for  a  few  hours  and  then  ebb,  time  alone  can 
show.  But  surely  in  the  present  state  of  human  thought 
we  cannot  feel  that  faith  in  duty  and  in  immortality 
rests  upon  a  very  secure  foundation  if  it  can  rest  only 
on  a  dualistic  philosophy. 

We  must  find  the  foundation  of  ethics  and  conse- 
quently of  religion,  not  in  ontology,  but  in  psychology ; 
not  in  the  assumption  of  a  spiritual  entity  absolutely  dis- 
tinct from  the  bodily  organism,  but  in  the  inexpugnable 
belief  of  personal  freedom  and  responsibility.  The  ego 
believes  itself,  and  cannot  help  believing  itself,  to  be 
free  and  responsible ;  and  that  necessary  belief  affords  a 
foundation  for  ethics  and  religion,  which  is  altogether 
independent  of  any  metaphysical  dogmas  as  to  the  es- 
sence or  the  essences  of  the  ego,  and  equally  independ- 
ent of  any  biological  hypotheses  as  to  the  process  by 
which  the  ego  came  into  existence.* 

It  is  often  taken  for  granted  that,  if  conscience  in 
man  is  a  product  of  evolution,  moral  distinctions  have 
no  permanent  basis,  and  therefore  no  validity.  Presi- 
dent Schurman  of  Cornell  University,  however,  has 
shown  with  great  acuteness  and  wisdom  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  objective  basis  and  validity  of  ethical  dis- 
tinctions is  entirely  distinct  from  the  question  of  the 
origin  of  man's  capacity  for  the  recognition  of  moral 
distinctions.    The  eye  is  undoubtedly  a  product  of  evo- 

*  For  fuller  discussion  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  see  p.  290. 

277 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

lution,  and  in  all  probability  the  evolution  of  that  or- 
gan has  been  mainly  due  to  the  principle  of  natural 
selection.  But  natural  selection  has  evolved  the  eye 
only  because  the  eye  is  useful,  and  the  eye  is  useful 
only  because  its  possessors  live  in  a  luminous  universe. 
In  like  manner,  President  Schurman  argues,  the  hu- 
man conscience  is  in  all  probability  a  product  of  evolu- 
tion, and  its  evolution  has  probably  been  due  in  large 
degree  to  the  principle  of  natural  selection.  But  natu- 
ral selection  could  evolve  a  conscience  only  because  a 
conscience  is  useful,  and  conscience  is  useful  only  be- 
cause its  possessors  live  in  a  moral  universe — a  uni- 
verse governed  by  "a  power  which  makes  for  righteous- 
ness." The  eye  and  the  conscience  alike  are  useful 
only  because  they  bring  their  possessor  into  relation 
with  objective  truth.* 

That  natural  selection  has  operated  effectively  to 
force  mankind  into  the  practice  of  some  of  the  virtues 
is  certain.  Those  traits  of  character  which  we  are  ac- 
customed to  call  the  manly  virtues,  as  courage  and 
fortitude,  enterprise  and  activity,  fidelity  and  loyalty, 
must  obviously  have  been  greatly  dependent  in  their 
development  upon  the  stern  action  of  natural  selection. 
In  intertribal  warfare,  those  tribes  which  possess 
these  virtues  in  greater  degree  will  be  sure  to  gain  the 
victory,  and  the  tribes  less  advanced  in  these  respects 
will  disappear  by  extermination  or  by  absorption  into 
the  races  that  have  conquered  them.  But  Drummond, 
in  his  "Ascent  of  Man,"  and  particularly  in  the  bril- 

*  Ethical  Import  of  Darwinism^  ch.  iv. 
278 


Ethical  Effect  of  Natural  Selection 

liant  chapters  on  ''The  Evolution  of  a  Mother"  and 
*'The  Evolution  of  a  Father,"  has  shown  how  natural 
selection  has  operated  in  the  development  of  a  very 
different  class  of  traits  of  character,  namely,  the  do- 
mestic virtues.  A  certain  deg-ree  of  domestic  vir- 
tue— a  certain  approximation  to  right  relations  be- 
tween husbands  and  wives  and  between  parents  and 
children — is  necessary  in  order  that  children  in  large 
numbers  may  be  reared  to  maturity.  A  tribe  which 
is  destitute  of  the  domestic  virtues,  must  be  few  in 
numbers,  because  the  children  born  will  not  be  suffi- 
ciently well  cared  for  to  be  reared  to  maturity.  In 
default  of  parental  care,  they  will  early  perish  by  dis- 
ease or  by  starvation.  In  the  ages  of  intertribal  war- 
fare, other  things  being  equal,  the  tribe  in  which  do- 
mestic virtues  exist  in  such  degree  as  to  secure  the 
rearing  of  large  numbers  of  children  must  overpower 
the  tribe  in  which  the  children  are  left  to  starve.* 

Nor  is  faith  in  immortality  dependent  upon  a  dual- 
istic  conception  of  human  nature.  It  is  a  profoundly 
significant  fact  that  Christianity,  with  Judaism  and 
Mohammedanism,  which  are  respectively  incomplete 
and  corrupted  phases  of  Christianity,  stands  alone 
among  the  religions  and  the  philosophies  of  the  world  in 
teaching  an  embodied  immortality.  It  is  not  the  immor- 
tality of  a  disembodied  spirit  that  Paul  preached  on  the 
Areopagus  amid  the  scoffs  of  Athenian  philosophers, 

*See  also  Fiske,  Outlines  of  Cosmic  Philosophy,  part  ii,  ch.  xxii.  To  Fiske 
belongs  the  credit  of  the  fruitful  suggestion  that  the  lengthening  of  the  period 
of  infancy  necessitated  the  permanence  of  the  family,  and  was  therefore  a  fac- 
tor of  inestimable  importance  in  the  evolution  of  the  social  and  moral  life  of 
humanity. 

279 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

but  dvdaraaig — resurrection.  If  a  monistic  philoso- 
phy should  become  established,  it  would  indeed  banish 
all  forms  of  the  faith  in  immortality  which  find  their 
rationale  in  the  conception  of  spirit  as  an  essence  dis- 
tinct and  separable  from  the  body.  The  swan-song 
of  Socrates  would  be  hushed;  but  the  voice  of  One 
greater  and  wiser  than  Socrates  might  still  be  heard 
as  clear  and  strong  as  nineteen  centuries  ago,  'T  am 
the  resurrection  and  the  life." 

Recent  philosophical  thought  attaches  very  little 
value,  as  proof  of  immortality,  to  the  supposed  indi- 
visibility of  the  soul.*  Lotze,  though  advocating  the 
philosophy  of  dualism,  finds  in  the  dualistic  conception 
no  valid  argument  for  immortality.  "The  question  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  does  not  belong  to  meta- 
physic.  We  have  no  other  principle  for  deciding  it 
beyond  this  general  idealistic  conviction;  that  every 
created  thing  will  continue,  if  and  so  long  as  its  con- 
tinuance belongs  to  the  meaning  of  the  world ;  that 
everything  will  pass  away  which  had  its  authorized 
place  only  in  a  transitory  phase  of  the  world's  course. "f 

A  definite  formulation  of  the  method  of  immortality 

*  "  We  are  not,  J  imagine,  concerned  to  resuscitate  the  rational  psychology 
of  the  Leibniz-Wolffians  which  Kant  demolished,  in  order  to  establish  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul  on  groimds  which  equally  prove  the  immortality  of 
atoms."    Ward,  Natm-alism  and  Agnosticism^  vol.  ii,  p.  192. 

"The  soul,  however,  when  closely  scrutinized,  guarantees  no  immortality 
of  a  sort  we  care  for.  The  enjoyment  of  the  atom-like  simplicity  of  their  sub- 
stance in  scecula  scBCulorum  would  not  to  most  people  seem  a  consummation 
devoutly  to  be  wished.  The  demand  for  immortality  is  nowadays  essentially 
teleological.  We  believe  ourselves  immortal  because  we  believe  ourselves  _/?/ 
for  immortality,  A  substance  ought  surely  to  perish,  we  think,  if  not  worthy 
to  survive ;  and  an  insubstantial  stream  to  prolong  itself,  provided  it  be 
worthy,  if  the  nature  of  things  is  organized  in  the  rational  way  in  which  we 
trust  it  is,"    James,  Principles  of  Psychology,  vol.  i,  p.  348, 

^  Metaphysic,  English  translation,  2d  edition,  vol,  ii,  p,  182. 

280 


Immortality 

must  obviously  transcend  the  reach  of  our  knowledge. 
The  duallstic  doctrine  permits  a  statement  of  the  con- 
ditions of  immortality  in  which  the  words  appear  in- 
telligible; but,  while  the  survival  of  a  disembodied 
spirit  may  be  a  phrase  verbally  intelligible,  it  surely 
transcends  the  power  of  beings  whose  only  expe- 
rience of  mental  action  has  been  in  relation  with  a 
physical  organism  to  conceive  the  actual  meaning  of 
disembodied  existence.  In  a  remarkable  book  entitled, 
"The  Unseen  Universe,"  published  anonymously  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago,  but  later  acknowledged  as  the 
work  of  Peter  G.  Tait  and  Balfour  Stewart,  two  of 
the  leading  English  physicists  of  this  generation,  a 
suggestion  is  offered  which  shows  at  least  that  the  idea 
of  immortality  on  a  monistic  basis  is  not  irrational. 
These  writers  set  forth  the  idea  that  the  universe  of 
matter  is  more  complex  than  at  first  sight  it  seems.  In 
addition  to  that  form  of  matter  which  is  tangible,  phys- 
ical science  has  already  compelled  us  to  postulate  the 
existence  of  another  form  of  matter,  the  luminiferous 
ether,  so  refined  and  tenuous  that  it  does  not  directly 
impress  our  senses.  Only  by  the  supposition  of  such 
a  more  tenuous  form  of  matter  interpenetrating  or- 
dinary forms  of  matter,  can  we  formulate  the  vibra- 
tions of  radiant  energy  which  are  the  ground  of  the 
phenomena  of  light  and  heat.  That  complexity  which 
we  have  been  already  compelled  to  attribute  to  matter 
involves,  of  course,  the  possibility  of  still  further  com- 
plexity. There  may  be  phases  of  matter  as  much  more 
tenuous  than  ether  as  that  is  more  tenuous  than  oxy- 

281 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

gen  or  carbon.  From  a  physiological  standpoint,  the 
condition  of  the  persistence  of  memory  and  self-con- 
sciousness must  be  found  in  the  continuous  record  of 
all  our  states  of  consciousness,  which  is  made  by  the 
molecular  changes  going  on  in  the  brain.  Though  it  is 
impossible  to  say  what  those  changes  are,  no  physiolo- 
gist doubts  that  some  cerebral  change  is  correlated  with 
every  state  of  consciousness,  and  that  thus  the  minute 
structure  of  the  brain  at  any  moment  is  a  record  of  all 
previous  experiences  in  life.  At  death,  that  record 
apparently  goes  to  destruction,  for  the  brain  shares  in 
that  chemical  decomposition  which  is  the  fate  of  the 
rest  of  the  body.  But,  as  Tait  and  Stewart  suggest  in 
the  book  to  which  I  have  referred,  that  record  may  be 
made  in  duplicate.  When  the  brain  that  we  can  see 
and  analyze  and  dissect  suffers  decomposition,  there 
may  survive,  in  some  more  tenuous  form  of  matter 
which  has  interpenetrated  the  matter  of  the  brain  and 
shared  in  its  developmental  changes,  a  duplicate  of  that 
record  of  past  states  of  consciousness,  which  may  serve 
as  a  medium  for  the  persistence  of  memory  and  self- 
consciousness  in  a  future  life.  Of  course  the  sugges- 
tion of  these  eminent  physicists  is  not  to  be  accepted 
as  a  dogma.  The  authors  themselves  had  doubtless  no 
such  thought  in  regard  to  it.  It  is  only  a  tentative 
suggestion,  indicating  that  personal  immortality  on  a 
purely  monistic  basis  is  not  an  irrational  belief.  It  is 
surely  a  contribution  of  some  value  to  religious  thought 
to  show  that  we  can  conceive  of  a  possible  method  of 
immortahty  on  a  monistic  basis.    A  somewhat  similar 

282 


The  Fall 

conception  of  the  method  of  the  future  Hfe,  though  not 
formulated  in  so  definite  accord  with  the  conceptions 
of  modern  physics,  is  found  in  the  teaching  of  that 
brilhant  but  erratic  genius,  Swedenborg. 

A  theological  doctrine  which  must  certainly  undergo 
some  change  under  the  influence  of  a  belief  in  evolu- 
tion is  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall.  It  is  obvious  that  the 
evolutionist  cannot  accept  as  historic  the  story  of  Eden, 
as  given  in  the  second  and  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Fall,  as  it  appeared  in  some  of 
the  older  forms  of  Christian  theology,  was  a  tremen- 
dously far-reaching  doctrine.  It  was  supposed  that  not 
only  man  himself  experienced  a  great  change,  but  that 
the  whole  universe  suffered  a  tremendous  catastrophe, 
at  the  time  of  Adam's  sin.  Snow-covered  mountains  and 
burning  deserts,  deleterious  weeds,  venomous  reptiles, 
and  ravenous  beasts,  were  supposed  to  be  the  result  of 
the  curse  pronounced  upon  the  world  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  geological  sci- 
ence peremptorily  excludes  any  such  notion.  But, 
after  the  idea  of  a  general  transformation  of  the  phys- 
ical universe  consequent  upon  Adam's  sin  had  been 
abandoned,  the  idea  was  still  maintained  that  a  vast 
and  terrible  change  passed  upon  man  himself.  It  was 
supposed  that  the  earliest  human  beings  were  beings 
of  supernal  intellectual  and  moral  elevation.  In  the 
striking  language  of  Doctor  South,  a  leading  theo- 
logian of  two  hundred  years  ago,  "an  Aristotle  was 
only  the  rubbish  of  an  Adam."  The  same  belief  of  the 
superiority  of  Adam  and  Eve  to  all  their  posterity  is 

283 


Theological  Bearings  of  Evolution 

expressed  with  somewhat  doubtful  grammatical  pro- 
priety by  Milton,  when  he  calls  Eve  "the  fairest  of 
her  daughters,"  and  Adam  *'the  goodliest  man  of  men 
since  born."  Whatever  we  may  think  of  the  poet's 
grammar,  there  is  no  doubt  about  his  meaning. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  modern  anthropologist 
cannot  accept  any  such  conception  of  the  primitive  con- 
dition of  humanity.  Such  a  conception,  indeed,  finds 
very  doubtful  support  in  the  ancient  traditions  pre- 
served to  us  in  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  cer- 
tainly finds  no  support  in  the  discoveries  of  prehistoric 
archaeology.  The  evolutionary  anthropologist  must  of 
course  believe  that  the  human  race  originated  in  in- 
fantile weakness  of  intellect,  and  in  that  characterless 
innocence  which  necessarily  precedes  the  beginning  of 
moral  conduct. 

Nevertheless,  while  the  legend  of  the  Fall  passes 
away,  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall  remains.  For,  beneath 
the  form  of  legend,  allegory,  or  myth,  lies  veiled  the 
profoundest  truth  of  human  history.  The  interpreta- 
tion of  the  doctrine  of  the  Fall  demanded  by  evolu- 
tionary anthropology  may  be  expressed  in  a  single 
word: — the  Fall  was  not  actual,  but  potential.  There 
was  no  precipitation  of  man  from  a  condition  of  su- 
pernal intellectual  and  moral  elevation  into  abysmal 
degradation ;  but  there  was,  with  the  first  act  of  sin,  a 
potential  fall,  absolutely  measureless,  in  the  forfeiture 
of  possibilities  inconceivably  glorious.  Imagine  a 
race  of  animate  beings  becoming  possessed,  no  matter 
how,  of  free-will  and  conscience.     What  imagination 

284 


Not  an  Actual,  but  a  Potential  Fall 

can  picture  the  possibilities  of  development  in  such  a 
race  if  every  volition  of  every  individual  were  right? 
Beyond  all  thought  would  be  the  glory  of  humanity,  in 
individual  and  in  social  development,  in  the  progress 
of  a  civilization  unmarred  by  sin.  It  is  sin  and  sin 
alone  that  has  forfeited  that  possibility  of  boundless 
glory. 

The  form  in  which  that  truth  is  expressed  in  the 
Eden  tradition  is  essentially  Semitic.  A  general  tend- 
ency is  personified.  The  transmission  of  the  effect  of 
sin  from  generation  to  generation,  partly,  doubtless,  in 
spite  of  Weismann,  by  physiological  inheritance,  but 
chiefly,  doubtless,  by  the  effect  of  conscious  and  un- 
conscious education,  is  represented  under  the  symbol 
of  a  fall  in  Adam.  We  fell  in  Adam  only  in  the  sense 
in  which  we  have  fallen  in  all  our  sinning  ancestors, 
and  in  all  those  whose  sins  are  embodied  in  the  evil 
traditions  and  institutions  that  pervert  human  life 
to-day. 

To  this  conception  of  the  Fall  the  soteriology  of  the 
New  Testament  adjusts  itself  without  difficulty.  Christ 
came,  not  to  make  man  what  Adam  was,  but  to  make 
man  what  Adam  might  have  become  if  he  had  not 
sinned ;  not  to  restore  a  Paradise  once  possessed,  but  to 
create  a  Paradise  whose  boundless  possibilities  of  glory 
had  been  forfeited  through  sin. 

28s 


PART  II 

STATUS  OF  CERTAIN  DOCTRINES  OF 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  AN  AGE 

OF  SCIENCE 


PART  II 

Status  of  Certain  Doctrines  of  Christianity  in  an 

Age  of  Science 

In  the  former  part  of  this  work  we  have  traced  the 
history  of  those  scientific  discoveries  which  have  been 
chiefly  important  in  modifying  religious  beliefs.  We 
have  traced  the  development  of  those  three  general  con- 
ceptions which  essentially  characterize  the  scientific 
view  of  nature;  namely,  the  extension  of  the  universe 
in  space,  the  extension  of  the  universe  in  time,  and  the 
unity  of  the  universe.  We  have  pointed  out  the 
changes  in  theological  belief  which  seemed  to  be  neces- 
sitated by  each  of  these  great  series  of  scientific  investi- 
gations. We  must  now  consider  the  present  status  of 
some  important  theological  doctrines,  not  as  affected 
by  any  one  scientific  discovery,  but  as  viewed  through 
the  general  intellectual  atmosphere  of  a  scientific  age. 

The  Personality  of  Man* 

The  belief  in  a  personal  God  is  often  called  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  theology.  There  is,  however, 
one  other  belief  still  more  fundamental — the  belief  in 
a  personal  man.     A  man  who  believes  himself  to  be 

*See  Fisher,  The  Grouuds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief  ch.  i.  The 
reader  will  readily  recognize  my  indebtedness  to  Professor  Fisher's  admirable 
discussion, 

289 


The  Personality  of  Man 

simply  a  ripple  on  the  sea  of  events,  and  human  life 
in  general  to  be  merely  an  episode  marking  a  particular 
stage  in  the  refrigeration  of  a  nebula,  is  not  likely  to 
believe  in  a  personal  God;  but  one  v^ho  thoroughly 
believes  in  his  own  personality  generally  finds  it  easy 
to  believe  in  the  personality  of  God. 

The  essential  attribute  of  personality  is  self-deter- 
mination. In  discussing  the  theological  bearings  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  it  has  been  pointed  out 
already*  that  the  belief  in  the  freedom  of  the  will  is 
not  dependent  upon  any  dualistic  theory  as  to  the  dis- 
tinction in  essence  between  spirit  and  matter,  and  is 
not  contradicted  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  The 
importance  of  that  belief,  as  the  foundation  of  all 
ethics  and  religion,  merits  a  somewhat  more  extended 
discussion. 

Doctor  Samuel  Johnson  is  said  to  have  disposed  of 
the  question  of  the  freedom  of  the  will  with  the  re- 
mark, 'T  know  I  am  free,  and  that  is  the  end  of  it" — 
a  concise  and  a  pretty  satisfactory  statement  of  the 
essential  reason  for  believing  in  freedom.  It  is  often, 
indeed,  erroneously  said  that  we  are  conscious  of  free- 
dom. That,  of  course,  is  impossible.  A  man  is  con- 
scious of  nothing  but  actual  mental  states.  He  cannot 
be  conscious  of  a  potentiality.  In  accordance  with  a 
volition,  I  rise  from  my  seat  and  begin  to  walk.  I 
believe  that  I  could  have  chosen  to  remain  seated,  but 
I  cannot  be  conscious  of  that  possibility.  I  am  con- 
scious only  of  the  actual  volition. 

*  Page  277. 
290 


Inalienable  Belief  in  Freedom  (3F  Will 

The  belief  in  the  freedom  of  the  will  is  like  the  belief 
in  the  trustworthiness  of  memory,  the  belief  in  the 
existence  of  an  external  universe,  and  other  inalienable 
beliefs  which  enter  into  all  our  thinking.  All  these 
beliefs  are  undemonstrable,  and  most  of  them  can  be 
denied  without  logical  absurdity.  If  any  one  denies 
the  existence  of  an  external  universe,  I  certainly  can- 
not prove  to  him  its  existence.  If  any  one  denies  that 
memory  is  trustworthy,  I  cannot  prove  that  it  is;  in 
fact,  I  have  plenty  of  evidence  in  my  ow^n  experience 
that  my  memory  is  not  always  trustworthy.  Never- 
theless I  must  trust  my  memory  because  I  have  nothing 
else  to  trust.  All  practical  life  and  all  scientific  reason- 
ing depend  upon  beliefs  that  have,  in  the  last  analysis, 
no  other  evidence  than  that  we  are  so  constituted  that 
we  have  them  and  cannot  get  rid  of  them.  If  the  whole 
physical  and  moral  universe  is  an  immense  lie,  it  is 
at  least  a  lie  which  we  cannot  detect  and  for  which 
we  are  not  responsible.  If  we  act  at  all,  we  must  act 
on  the  general  postulate  of  the  truthfulness  of  the 
universe.  It  is  sound  philosophy  to  assume  the  truth 
of  our  inalienable  beliefs. 

Even  those  who  in  their  philosophy  profess  to  be- 
lieve in  fatalism  or  determinism,  act  in  all  the  practical 
affairs  of  life  upon  the  belief  of  freedom.  Their  moral 
judgments  of  the  conduct  of  themselves  and  others, 
and  their  spontaneous  sentiments  of  complacency  or 
remorse,  of  gratitude  or  resentment,  bear  testimony  to 
a  belief  in  freedom  deeper  than  any  philosophy;  "their 
conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the 

29  T 


The  Personality  of  Man 

meanwhile  accusing"  or  else  excusing  one  another."* 
In  the  old  classical  story,  when  Zeno,  the  Stoic  phi- 
losopher, proposed  to  flog  a  slave  that  had  been  guilty 
of  stealing,  the  slave  answered,  in  the  terms  of  the 
philosophy  which  his  master  had  taught  him,  that  it 
was  fated  for  him  to  steal.  The  philosopher  ingen- 
iously saved  his  consistency  by  answering  that  it  was 
fated  also  that  he  should  flog  the  slave;  but  his  feel- 
ing of  resentment  was  doubtless  the  same  as  if  he  had 
made  no  profession  of  philosophic  fatalism. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  the  philosophers  who  deny 
the  freedom  of  the  will  deal  with  the  common  moral 
experiences  of  mankind.  Spinoza  has  at  least  the  merit 
of  consistency.  Holding  the  distinction  of  right  and 
WTong  to  be  merely  artificial  and  conventional,  he  de- 
clares, "Repentance  is  not  a  virtue,  or  does  not  arise 
from  reason ;  but  he  who  repents  of  any  deed  he  has 
done  is  twice  miserable  or  impotent."  A  philosophy 
which  thus  repudiates  the  deepest  moral  convictions  of 
humanity  needs  no  other  refutation.  It  is  curious  to 
see  how  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  was  a  man  of  intensely 
vigorous  moral  nature,  sought  deliverance  from  the 
conflict  between  his  philosophic  creed  and  his  moral 
convictions.  He  tells  us,  "The  true  doctrine  of  the 
causation  of  human  actions  maintains  that  not  only 
our  conduct,  but  our  character,  is  in  part  amenable  to 
our  will ;  that  we  can,  by  employing  the  proper  means, 
improve  our  character;  and  that,  if  our  character  is 
such  that,  while  it  remains  what  it  is,  it  necessitates  us 

*  Romans,  ii,  15. 
292 


Ethics  of  Necessarianism 

to  do  wrong,  it  will  be  just  to  apply  motives  which  will 
necessitate  us  to  strive  for  its  improvement,  and  to 
emancipate  ourselves  from  the  other  necessity."  But 
the  ingenious  attempt  at  reconciliation  between  his 
philosophy  and  his  moral  sense  is  obviously  a  failure, 
for  the  volition  to  use  means  to  change  one's  character 
must  be  just  as  truly  necessitated  as  any  other  volition. 
If  I  am  paralyzed  in  all  my  limbs,  I  can  no  more  reach 
out  my  hand  to  grasp  a  friendly  hand  that  would  uplift 
me,  than  I  can  rise  without  help  and  walk. 

A  belief  which  seems  to  be  inalienable  and  necessary 
must  be  assumed  to  be  valid  unless  it  can  be  proved  to 
be  false.  There  have  been  some  attempts  to  show  that 
the  freedom  of  the  will  involves  a  contradiction  of 
accepted  philosophical  principles  or  scientific  induc- 
tions. It  is  claimed  sometimes  that  the  doctrine  of 
freedom  contradicts  the  principle  of  causality.  If 
the  will,  it  is  said,  is  not  necessitated  in  its  action  by 
pre-existent  conditions,  the  act  of  volition  is  an  event 
without  any  cause.  The  simple  answer  to  this  phil- 
osophical objection  is  in  the  assertion  that  the  very 
essence  of  personality  is  the  capacity  to  act  as  an  inde- 
pendent cause.  I  am  myself  the  cause  of  my  volition, 
and  no  other  cause  is  needed. 

Again,  it  has  been  alleged  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
freedom  of  the  will  is  contrary  to  the  scientific  induc- 
tion of  the  conservation  of  energy.     We  have  seen* 

*  Pag;e  135.  It  is  well  to  remark  that  the  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of 
energy,  though  resting  on  strong  grounds  of  probability,  is,  like  all  such  in- 
ductions, undemonstrated  and  undemonstrable.  It  may  not  be  absolutely  and 
universally  true.     See  discussion  of  Law  in  Nature,  p.  321, 


The  Personality  of  Man 

that,  in  the  endless  succession  of  changes  in  nature,  it 
must  be  assumed  that  there  is  neither  gain  nor  loss  of 
energy,  but  only  perpetual  transformation.  One  form 
of  energy  passes  into  another,  but  an  exact  quantitative 
equivalence  is  maintained.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  principle  of  conservation  of  energy  holds  in 
the  changes  of  the  human  body,  as  truly  as  in  the 
changes  in  inanimate  nature ;  in  the  processes  that  go 
on  in  the  cerebrum,  as  truly  as  in  those  that  go  on  in 
the  muscles.  If,  then,  a  series  of  psychical  states  be- 
ginning with  a  sensation  and  culminating  in  an  act  of 
volition  is  followed  by  a  muscular  movement  initiating 
a  further  series  of  transformations  of  energy,  it  is 
argued  that  the  nexus  between  the  successive  mental 
states  must  be  of  the  same  nature  with  the  nexus  be- 
tween other  terms  in  the  series  of  events.  I  believe  the 
true  answer  to  this  line  of  argument  is  in  the 
position  that  the  successive  states  of  consciousness  are 
not  related  as  successive  transformations  of  energy. 
Whether  we  adopt  a  dualistic  or  a  monistic  theory  as 
to  the  essence  of  the  conscious  cgo^  it  is  certainly  true 
that  states  of  consciousness  are  an  order  of  phenomena 
entirely  disparate  from  those  which  are  recognized  by 
the  physicist.*  They  may,  for  aught  we  know,  inhere 
in  the  same  essence;  but,  if  so,  that  essence  is  so 
complex  as  to  be  the  substratum  of  two  sets  of  phe- 
nomena so  utterly  disparate  as  to  have  no  quantitative 
relation  to  each  other.  All  physical  changes  are  move- 
ments of  matter,   formulable   in  terms   of  mass  and 

*  Page  264. 

294 


The  Will,  and  the  Conservation  of  Energy 

velocity.  But  to  speak  of  the  mass  or  velocity  of  a 
state  of  consciousness  is  to  use  words  without  meaning. 
Our  states  of  consciousness  are  not  terms  intercalated 
in  the  series  of  cerebral  changes.  They  are  another 
series  parallel  with  the  series  of  cerebral  changes.  The 
nature  of  the  nexus  between  the  two  series  is  some- 
thing absolutely  beyond  our  ken.  The  changes  in  the 
sensory  organs  which  follow  a  stimulus  from  the  outer 
world,  the  changes  in  the  cerebrum  which  are  initiated 
by  the  changes  in  the  sensory  organs,  the  muscular 
movements  which  follow — all  these  doubtless  obey  the 
law  of  conservation  of  energy.  But  the  states  of  con- 
sciousness associated  with  the  cerebral  changes  are  phe- 
nomena of  a  different  order.  They  neither  add  to  nor 
subtract  from  the  energy  of  the  cerebral  movements. 
Some  of  the  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  illus- 
trate the  relation  between  volition  and  physical  phe- 
nomena are  based  on  wrong  principles,  and  are  mis- 
leading. Attention  has  sometimes  been  called  to  the 
fact  that  a  movement  involving  a  very  small  amount 
of  energy  often  gives  direction  to  a  series  of  move- 
ments involving  an  immense  amount  of  energy.  The 
relatively  small  rudder  directs  the  course  of  the  large 
ship,  although  the  energy  involved  in  the  turning  of 
the  rudder  is  but  a  minute  fraction  of  that  which  ro- 
tates the  screw.  The  energy  required  to  pull  the  trig- 
ger of  a  gun  bears  a  relation  even  more  infinitesimal 
to  the  energy  which  is  liberated  by  the  explosion  of 
the  powder.  So  it  has  been  said  that  volition  repre- 
sents an  infinitesimal  amount  of  physical  energy,  but 

29S 


The  Personality  of  Man 

yet  determines  the  course  of  a  series  of  events  involv- 
ing vastly  greater  amounts  of  energy.  Such  analogies 
are  false,  for  the  relation  between  the  energy  that 
moves  the  rudder  and  that  which  turns  the  screw  is 
only  the  quantitative  relation  of  less  and  greater.  The 
energy  that  pulls  the  trigger  is  likewise  quantitatively 
related  to  the  vastly  greater  store  of  energy  liberated 
by  the  explosion  of  the  powder.  But  neither  volition 
nor  any  other  mental  state  has  a  quantitative  relation 
to  physical  energy.  The  recognition  of  the  absolute 
disparateness  of  the  two  classes  of  phenomena  is  essen- 
tial to  sound  thinking  in  regard  to  them. 

Experience  compels  us  to  believe  that  volition  is  a 
cause  of  bodily  movements.  No  man  of  common  sense 
can  doubt  the  fact.  It  is  indeed  from  the  experience 
of  volition  that  the  idea  of  causality  is  derived.  But 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  mode  of  causation 
is  a  transformation  of  energy.  Volition  is  not  trans- 
formed into  muscular  motion,  as  heat  is  transformed 
into  motion  in  the  steam  engine.  Transformation  of 
energy  is  not  the  only  kind  of  causation  that  exists  in 
nature.  Our  volition  determines  the  order  and  direc- 
tion of  the  series  of  transformations  of  energy,  prima- 
rily within  our  own  bodies,  secondarily  in  the  outer 
world,  not  by  contributing  energy  to  the  series,  but  by 
some  other  mode  of  causation  none  the  less  real  because 
utterly  incomprehensible.  It  is,  indeed,  no  more  in- 
comprehensible that  a  mental  state  should  be  the  cause 
of  a  physical  movement  than  that  a  physical  move- 
ment should  be  the  cause  of  a  mental  state.    The  very 

296 


Prediction  of  Human  Actk 

simplest  mental  act,  that  of  sensation,  has  obviously 
its  cause  in  the  changes  in  the  sensory  organs  induced 
by  an  external  stimulus.  It  is  no  more  incomprehen- 
sible that  mental  states  should  be  the  cause  of  physical 
movements  than  that  physical  movements  should  be 
the  cause  of  mental  states.  In  each  case  the  link  of 
causation  is  real.  In  each  alike  it  is  incomprehensible, 
and  in  neither  is  it  a  transformation  of  energy  into  a 
quantitative  equivalent. 

Again,  it  is  objected  to  the  doctrine  of  freedom  that 
it  is  contrary  to  human  experience.  Men's  actions,  it 
is  said,  are  capable  of  being  predicted,  and  therefore 
they  cannot  be  free.  This  line  of  argument  takes  two 
forms.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  urged  that  the  conduct 
of  masses  of  men  can  be  predicted.  We  can  tell  at  the 
beginning  of  a  year,  with  very  close  approximation  to 
the  truth,  how  many  people  in  the  State  of  Connecticut 
will  commit  forgery  or  murder  or  any  other  specific 
form  of  crime,  how  many  will  die  by  suicide,  how 
many  couples  will  marry,  how  many  couples  w^ill  be 
divorced.  Now  it  is  said  that,  since  the  conduct  of 
men  is  thus  predictable,  it  must  be  governed  by  some 
fixed  law,  and  therefore  the  actions  of  men  cannot  be 
free.  It  is  perhaps  enough  to  reply  that  the  approx- 
imate conformity  of  any  particular  class  of  phenomena 
to  a  law  of  averages  shows  nothing  whatever  in  re- 
gard to  the  nature  of  the  cause.  It  only  indicates  that, 
whatever  the  nature  of  the  cause  may  be,  it  operates, 
wheh  viewed  statistically  on  a  large  scale,  with  an  ap- 
proximation to  uniformity.     With  the  supposition  that 

297 


The  Personality  of  Man 

the  will  is  free,  and  that  every  individual  is  absolutely 
the  cause  of  his  own  volition,  there  is  nothing  incom- 
patible in  the  fact  that  the  number  of  volitional  events 
of  any  particular  kind  should  conform  to  a  law  of  aver- 
ages, since  the  substantial  unity  of  human  nature  may 
be  expected  to  show  itself  in  a  certain  uniformity  of 
average  conduct. 

But,  secondly,  it  is  said,  we  can  not  only  predict  by 
statistical  methods  the  conduct  of  masses  of  popula- 
tion, but  can  also  in  many  cases,  with  very  strong  de- 
gree of  probability,  predict  the  action  of  individuals. 
Of  two  young  men  going  into  the  army,  we  say  that 
the  temptations  of  camp  life  will  make  one  a  drunkard, 
while  the  other  will  be  proof  against  them.  Of  two 
men  called  to  the  treasurership  of  institutions  or  cor- 
porations, we  say  that  one  will  steal  the  money  with 
w^hich  he  is  intrusted,  while  the  honesty  of  the  other 
would  be  safe  if  he  had  to  handle  all  the  wealth  of  all 
the  Indies.  In  a  considerable  proportion  of  cases,  pre- 
dictions of  this  kind  made  by  men  of  shrewdness  and 
knowledge  of  human  nature  are  fulfilled.  How,  it  is 
asked,  can  men's  actions  thus  be  predicted,  if  every 
volition  is  free?  I  am  inclined  to  think  the  most  sat- 
isfactory answer  to  that  question  has  been  given  by 
Archbishop  Temple  in  his  Bampton  Lectures.*  The 
power  of  free  agency,  he  tells  us,  though  always  poten- 
tial in  men,  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  rarely  exercised. 
It  is  exercised  only  in  those  critical  actions  of  life 
which  are  the  determining  points  of  character.     Com- 

*  The  Relations  between  Religion  and  Science^  lect.  iii. 
298 


Potential  Free  Agency 

paratively  few  times  in  the  course  of  an  individual  life 
is  the  question  definitely  raised  between  the  choice  of 
right  and  wrong.  In  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  though 
potentially  free,  we  act  mechanically,  simply  following 
out  the  general  plan  of  life  which  we  have  adopted, 
simply  obeyfng  the  motives  to  whose  guidance  we  have 
already  surrendered  ourselves.  A  simple  illustration, 
for  which  the  Archbishop  is  not  responsible,  will  pos- 
sibly help  the  understanding  of  his  thought.  I  start 
from  my  house  with  a  resolution  to  walk  to  the  post- 
office.  The  action  begins  with  a  conscious  volition, 
but  that  volition  is  not  repeated  at  every  step  of  the 
journey.  Most  of  the  steps,  indeed,  are  not  even  con- 
scious. The  automatic  action  of  the  spinal  cord  main- 
tains the  rhythmic  movement  of  my  limbs  until  I  find 
myself  at  my  destination.  In  a  manner  somewhat 
analogous,  we  may  say,  at  some  critical  epoch  in  his 
life  a  man  consecrates  his  life  to  truth  and  goodness. 
He  thus  enthrones  in  his  life  a  supreme  purpose.  In 
the  exercise  of  his  divine  gift  of  freedom,  he  chooses 
duty  rather  than  selfishness  for  the  law  of  his  life.  But 
he  does  not  have  to  make  that  solemn  resolution  every 
time  he  goes  to  church  on  Sunday,  or  to  his  office  on 
a  week  day,  every  time  he  pays  a  debt,  or  gives  a  con- 
tribution to  a  missionary  society.  The  details  of  his 
life  simply  follow  spontaneously,  mechanically,  from 
the  purpose  once  established.  The  two  cases  are,  of 
course,  not  identical.  In  the  former  case,  the  succes- 
sive steps  of  the  walk  are  unconscious,  and  physiolog- 
ically the  nervous  action  involved  is  that  of  the  spinal 

299 


The  Personality  of  Man 

cord.  In  the  latter,  the  details  of  duty  by  which  the 
general  plan  of  life  is  put  into  effect  ar€  conscious,  and 
physiologically  they  involve  the  action  of  the  cerebrum. 
But  the  two  cases  ire  analogous,  in  that  in 'each  case 
a  higher  faculty  is  exercised  in  the  initiation  of  a 
course  of  conduct  whose  details  are  carried  into  effect 
by  lower  faculties.  The  reason,  then,  why  the  majority 
of  individual  actions  are  predictable  is  that  in  most  of 
them  there  is  no  exercise  of  free  agency.  Precisely  the 
thing  which  is  not  predictable  by  human  intelligence  is 
the  conduct  of  the  individual  in  those  critical  moments 
when  character  is  made. 

Archbishop  Temple  further  points  out  the  immense 
moral  advantage  of  that  constitution  of  human  nature 
w^hich  thus  allows  our  actions  to  be  virtually  necessi- 
tated by  our  character.  Therefrom  it  comes,  in  the 
moral  development  of  the  individual,  that  we  do  not 
have  to  fight  over  again  the  whole  battle  of  life  in 
every  alternative  of  good  or  evil  conduct  which 
presents  itself  to  us.  There  is,  rather,  the  magnificent 
possibility  that,  by  right  decision  in  repeated  critical  in- 
stances, we  can  establish  a  character  which  will  natu- 
rally and  spontaneously  practice  the  good.  To  that  goal 
all  moral  education  of  ourselves  or  of  others  is  directed. 
The  full  attainment  of  that  goal  is  the  blessedness  of 
heaven. 

It  is  frankly  admitted  that  freedom  is  incomprehen- 
sible; that  it  constitutes  an  exceptional  phenomenon. 
We  find  nothing  like  it  in  the  inanimate  world,  and 
probably  nothing  like  it  in  the  lower  animate  world. 

300 


The  Personality  of  God 

But  in  ourselves  an  inalienable  conviction  declares  the 
possession  of  that  power.  The  utter  incomprehensi- 
bility of  that  power  is  no  reason  why  its  existence 
should  not  be  believed.  The  belief  in  our  own  freedom 
stands  in  the  same  rank  with  other  necessary  beliefs. 
It  contradicts  no  necessary  belief,  no  well-established 
induction. 

The  Personality  of  God 

Belief  in  the  personality  of  man  makes  it  easy  to 
believe  in  the  personality  of  God.  Probably  everyone 
who  does  truly  believe  in  his  own  personality,  believes 
in  a  personal  God  or  in  personal  gods.  The  conscious- 
ness of  our  own  volition  gives  the  first  idea  of  causa- 
tion, in  the  experience  of  every  individual.  Hence 
primitive  man  refers  all  causation  in  nature  to  the  will 
of  beings  like  himself.  In  its  crudest  and  most  primi- 
tive form,  theistic  belief  assumes  an  infinite  multitude 
of  little  gods.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  animism.  Every 
separate  object  which  comes  into  relation  with  us,  or 
affects  us  for  good  or  evil,  is  conceived  to  be  possessed 
of  a  nature  like  our  own,  and  to  act  in  a  manner 
analogous  to  our  own  volition. 

But,  as  man's  knowledge  of  the  material  universe 
advances,  the  multitude  of  little  gods  tends  to  give 
place  to  a  smaller  number  of  larger  gods.  As  knowl- 
edge grows,  men  see  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume 
the  existence  of  a  separate  soul  in  every  leaf  or  in 
every  stone.  The  phenomena  of  nature  come  to  be 
more  or  less  classified;    and,  instead  of  postulating  a 

301 


The  Personality  of  God 

separate  intelligence  for  each  particular  object,  men 
postulate  a  special  intelligence  whose  volition  shall  be 
the  cause  of  each  class  of  phenomena.  So  the  universe 
may  be  divided  locally  into  various  realms;  and  men 
may  think  of  one  god  of  the  heaven,  and  one  of  the 
earth,  and  one  of  the  sea,  and  one,  it  may  be,  of  that 
mysterious  under-world  of  whose  existence  the  earth- 
quake and  the  volcano  give  vague  but  terribly  impress- 
ive intimations.  Or,  instead  of  a  local  classification, 
there  may  be  a  functional  classification,  as  in  the  trinity 
of  Hinduism,  in  which  one  of  the  great  gods  is  con- 
ceived as  the  creator,  a  second  as  the  preserver,  and  the 
third  as-  the  destroyer  of  all  things.  So,  with  in- 
creasing knowledge  and  deepening  thought,  animism 
develops  into  a  more  or  less  philosophic  system  of 
polytheism. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  animism  and  polytheism 
belong  to  stages  in  human  development  which  the  civ- 
ilized world  has  long  since  passed  by.  The  supreme 
generalization  towards  which  science  has  moved  from 
its  crudest  beginnings,  is  that  of  the  unity  of  the  cos- 
mos; and  in  a  scientific  age  polytheism  is  impossible. 
The  causa  causarum,  the  ground  of  the  universe,  may 
be  personal  or  impersonal,  intelligent  or  unintelligent : 
it  rriust  be  one.  The  unity  of  the  cosmos  proclaims  in- 
dubitably the  unity  of  that  cause  in  which  the  cosmos 
has  its  being. 

The  ground  of  belief  to-day  in  one  personal  God  is, 
in  the  last  analysis,  the  same  that  led  our  savage  ances- 
tors to  believe  in  an  infinite  multitude  of  little  gods. 

302 


The  Argument  from  Design 

That  ground  of  belief  in  the  personaHty  of  God  or 
gods  is,  in  its  most  general  statement,  a  more  or  less 
complete  analogy  observed  between  the  phenomena  of 
nature  and  the  activities  of  man.  It  was  doubtless  the 
experience  of  human  volition  that  first  suggested  a  be- 
lief in  a  personal  god.  The  argument  for  the  person- 
ality of  God  turns  now  chiefly  on  the  manifestations 
in  nature  of  something  like  the  intellectual  activities  of 
man.  The  argument  for  the  personality  of  God,  from 
the  supposed  manifestations  of  intellectual  activities  in 
nature,  will  be  recognized  at  once  as  the  argument 
which  has  been  commonly  called  the  argument  from 
design.  The  function  and  the  importance  of  the  argu- 
ment from  design  are  recognized  by  all  thinkers.  The 
principle  of  causality  forbids  us  to  believe  in  an  un- 
caused beginning.  It  compels  us,  therefore,  to  believe 
in  the  existence  of  something  eternal  and  self-existent 
wherein  lies  the  ground  of  all  other  existence.  If  there 
ever  was  a  fool  who  "said  in  his  heart,  There  is  no 
God,'  "  meaning  thereby  that  there  is  no  eternal  and 
self-existent  something,  the  ground  of  all  other  exist- 
ence, it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  the  intellectual  evolution 
of  humanity  that  particular  species  of  fool  has  become 
extinct.  But  the  admission  of  an  eternal  and  self- 
existent  something  leaves  unanswered  the  question 
whether  that  something  is  unintelligent  or  intelligent, 
a  blind  force  or  a  free  and  moral  personality.  The 
function,  then,  of  the  argument  from  design  is  to  es- 
tablish the  probability  that  the  eternal  something  is 
intelligent. 

303 


The  Personality  of  God 

Every  one  is  familiar  with  Paley's  classical  illustra- 
tion of  the  watch,  whose  mutual  adjustment  of  parts 
bears  testimony  to  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  made 
and  to  the  intelligence  involved  in  the  making;  and 
every  one  has  recognized  the  ingenuity  with  which  it 
is  argued  that  the  conclusion  is  not  invalidated, 
although  we  may  never  have  seen  a  watch  made  and 
may  have  no  idea  how  it  was  made,  although  the  watch 
sometimes  goes  wrong  or  seldom  goes  exactly  right, 
although  there  are  some  parts  for  which  we  can  dis- 
cover no  use,  and  although  it  appears,  on  further 
examination,  that  the  watch  contains  within  itself  a 
miniature  watch  factory,  and  is  capable  of  producing 
a  progeny  of  watches.  As  the  argument  was  worked 
out  by  Paley,  the  stress  was  laid  chiefly  upon  intricate 
and  complex  mutual  adjustments.  His  illustrations 
from  nature  were  taken  chiefly  from  the  complex  struc- 
tures of  the  animal  body.  Of  all  illustrations  the  one 
which  seemed  to  put  the  argument  with  the  greatest 
cogency  was  that  of  the  eye,  as  found  in  man  and  others 
of  the  higher  vertebrates.  The  functional  perfection  of 
the  eye  depends  upon  the  precise  adjustment  of  the 
curvatures  and  refractive  indices  of  a  number  of  re- 
fractive media,  placed  in  front  of  the  sensitive  retina, 
and  guarded  by  a  variety  of  protective  apparatus.  It 
can  hardly  be  questioned  that  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment as  presented  by  Paley  is  seriously  impaired,  when 
we  consider  that  the  eye,  like  all  other  animal  struc- 
tures, has  come  to  be  what  it  is  by  a  process  of  evo- 
lution carried  on  mainly  under  the  guidance  of  the 

304 


The  Argument  as  Stated  by  Paley 

principle  of  natural  selection.  If  the  eye  has  come  to 
be  what  it  is  by  the  survival  of  the  fittest — desirable 
variations  having  been  selected  out  of  an  indefinite 
multitude  of  variations  which  have  occurred,  while  un- 
desirable variations  have  disappeared  by  the  extinc- 
tion of  their  possessors,  the  evolution  of  the  organ 
having  begun  with  a  form  so  simple  as  to  be  merely 
a  pigment  fleck  covering  the  termination  of  a  nerve, — 
it  is  certain  that  an  argument  based  on  the  exquis- 
ite mutual  adaptation  of  the  parts  of  the  eye  does 
not  have  the  same  degree  of  cogency  which  it  was 
supposed  to  have  when  the  eye  in  its  most  perfect 
form  was  looked  upon  as  an  independent  and  orig- 
inal production.  A  homely  illustration  may  perhaps 
make  the  point  a  little  clearer.  If  we  should  find 
a  vessel  packed  nearly  or  quite  solidly  with  a  variety 
of  objects,  in  such  wise  that  the  small  objects  filled 
the  chinks  between  the  large  ones,  and  every  salient 
angle  of  one  object  fitted  exactly  or  approximately  into 
a  reentrant  angle  of  another  object  or  into  a  space  be- 
tween two  or  more  adjacent  objects,  there  might  be 
fair  ground  for  an  inference  that  some  one  intended 
the  vessel  to  be  full.  But,  if  we  were  following  the  plan 
of  the  Paleyan  natural  theology,  we  should  select  for 
special  consideration  some  object  of  exceedingly  com- 
plicated form,  and  infer  from  the  fact  that  its  salient 
angles  exactly  corresponded  with  the  reentrant  angles 
in  the  adjacent  objects,  and  vice  versa,  that  its  complex 
form  was  specially  designed  for  the  particular  space 
which  it  was  to  fill.    It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  force 

305 


The  Personality  of  God 

of  such  an  argument  would  be  seriously  impaired,  if  it 
could  be  shown  to  be  highly  probable  that  the  vessel 
had  reached  its  present  condition  by  a  process  of  shak- 
ing, wherein  the  small  objects  had  gradually  rattled 
into  the  chinks  between  the  large  ones,  and  the  hard 
objects  had  impressed  their  form  upon  the  soft  ones. 
This  homely  illustration  sets  forth  not  unfairly  the 
manner  in  which  the  Paleyan  argument  is  affected  by 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  particularly  by  the  Dar- 
winian theory  of  natural  selection.* 

The  question  is  thereby  suggested  whether  the  argu- 
ment from  design  is  invalidated  or  only  modified  in  its 
form.  I  believe  that  the  latter  alternative  is  the  truth. 
Stress  must  be  laid,  not  upon  minute  and  special  adap- 
tation of  particular  structures,  but  upon  the  general  as- 
pect of  law  and  formulable  order  pervading  all  nature. 
This  thought  is  most  happily  expressed  in  a  phrase 
used  by  the  great  mathematician,  Benjamin  Peirce, 
"the  amazing  intellectuality  inwrought  into  the  un- 
conscious material  world. "f  The  argument  from  de- 
sign, in  the  light  of  recent  scientific  thought,  may 
formulate  itself  somewhat  in  this  wise : — A  book  which 
we  can  read  must  have  been  written  by  an  intelligence 
kindred  with  our  own ;  the  universe  is  a  book  we  can 
read ;  therefore  the  universe  is  the  work  of  an  intelli- 
gence kindred  with  our  own.  Nature  has  a  meaning 
to  us,  and  is  formulable  by  us,  because  it  is  the  expres- 

*  An  elegant  illustration  bearing  in  the  same  direction  may  be  found  in 
Romanes,  Thoughts  on  Religion^  p.  58. 

t  See  a  number  of  very  striking  quotations  from  this  writer,  in  Fisher, 
Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief  revised  edition,  p.  34. 

306 


Wastefulness  of  Nature 

sion  of  a  mind  of  which  our  own  minds  are  miniature 
counterparts.* 

It  may  be  remarked  incidentally  that  the  Darwinian 
theory  of  natural  selection  furnishes  a  relief  from  one 
of  the  difficulties  which  troubled  the  natural  theolo- 
gians of  former  times.  The  apparent  wastefulness  of 
nature,  in  the  production  of  countless  myriads  of  living 
creatures  destined  to  be  destroyed  in  embryonic  or  in- 
fantile stages  of  existence,  has  always  seemed  some- 
thing unaccountable,  and  something  very  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  the  conception  of  a  wise  and  benevolent 
Creator.  Natural  selection  shows  the  meaning  and 
the  purpose  of  this  apparent  w^aste.  It  shows  that  this 
over-production  has  been  the  very  means  by  which  the 
more  advanced  forms  of  life  have  been  developed  from 
the  crude  simplicity  of  earlier  forms.  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  natural  selection  furnishes  a  complete  the- 
odicy. The  unanswerable  question  may  still  be  asked, 
whether  there  might  not  have  been  some  better  way  of 
reaching  the  development  of  the  higher  forms  of  life 
than  through  this  process  of  wholesale  slaughter ;  but 
it  is  at  least  something  to  have  shown  that  the  seeming 
waste  is  not  a  waste,  but  is  an  effectual  means  of 
achieving  a  lofty  end. 

But  man  projects  into  the  outer  world,  to  form  his 
belief  in  God,  not  only  his  volition  and  his  intellectual 

*  **  Nature  itself  is  teleological,  and  that  in  two  respects  :  (i)  it  is  conform- 
able to  human  intelli,q:ence,  and  (2),  in  consequence,  it  is  amenable  to  human 
ends.  In  the  first  point  mentioned  we  find  implied  that  essential  oneness  of 
thought  and  bein^:,  that  recognition  of  the  intelligible  by  intelligence,  that 
greeting  of  spirit  by  spirit,  for  which  idealists  have  always  contended."  Ward, 
Naturalism  atid  Agnosticism,  vol.  ii,  p.  254. 


The  Personality  of  God 

activities,  but  also  his  moral  nature.  The  sense  of 
moral  law,  which  is  an  inalienable  attribute  of  human- 
ity, suggests  the  notion  of  a  lawgiver  and  a  governor. 
Moreover,  every  individual,  when  he  comes  to  con- 
sciousness, finds  himself  a  subject  of  government  in 
the  family  and  the  state ;  and  the  outward  experience 
of  governmental  relations  in  society  concurs  with  the 
inward  experience  of  an  inalienable  conviction  of  law, 
to  suggest  the  idea  of  a  superhuman  lawgiver  and 
governor.  The  suggestion  of  a  superhuman  governor, 
thus  derived,  finds  reinforcement  in  the  not  infrequent 
conspicuous  examples  of  natural  retribution  for  good 
or  evil  conduct.  Though  it  is  very  far  from  being  the 
truth  that  nature  works  upon  man  in  his  objective  ex- 
perience a  systematic  and  consistent  retribution,  the 
cases  in  which  virtue  leads  to  prosperity,  and  flagrant 
and  abominable  sin  brings  exemp\ary  doom,  are  suffi- 
ciently frequent  to  give  considerable  encouragement  to 
the  notion  of  '*a  power  which  makes  for  righteousness" 
outside  of  and  above  man.  Hence,  in  all  except  the 
very  lowest  phases  of  religious  belief,  the  gods  have 
been  conceived  as  moral  governors. 

The  character  which  man  attributes  to  the  gods  de- 
pends of  necessity  largely  upon  his  own  character.  The 
gods  may  be  conceived  as  indifferent  to  sin,  except 
when  it  takes  the  form  of  personal  insult  to  themselves 
or  of  contumacious  defiance  of  their  authority ;  or  they 
may  be  conceived  as  absolutely  impartial  and  incor- 
ruptible judges  of  all  moral  conduct.  There  is  thus  a 
truth  in  the  remark  of  Feuerbach,  that  "man  made 

308 


Religion  always  Anthropomorphic 

God  in  his  own  image."  The  same  thought  is  ex- 
pressed in  Robert  Ingersoll's  new  version  of  a  famiHar 
quotation,  *'An  honest  God's  the  noblest  work  of  man." 
The  ethical  standard  and  the  religious  creed  contin- 
ually act  and  react  upon  each  other.  The  nobler  the 
idea  of  morality  to  which  man  has  attained,  the  nobler 
will  be  the  character  with  which  he  will  invest  his  God. 
The  nobler  man's  thought  of  God  becomes,  the  more 
elevated  will  be  his  own  moral  ideals.  But  in  the 
highest  forms  of  religion,  as  in  the  lowest,  the  concep- 
tion of  God  is  derived  from  the  experience  of  man. 
Hence  the  highest  forms  of  religion  are  as  truly  anthro- 
pomorphic as  the  lowest.  The  faith  which  breathes 
itself  in  the  prayer  of  all  prayers,  "Our  Father  which 
art  in  heaven,"  is  as  truly  anthropomorphic  as  that 
earlier  faith  which  gave  us  the  story  of  Moses  in  the 
cleft  of  the  rock,  beholding  the  "back  parts"  of  Jeho- 
vah, whose  face  no  man  could  see  and  live  ;*  as  truly 
anthropomorphic  as  the  mythology  that  has  told  us  of 
the  quarrels  and  amours  of  Olympus ;  as  truly  anthro- 
pomorphic as  the  notions  of  the  savage  who  beats  his 
idol  when  his  prayers  are  not  answered.  The  differ- 
ence between  the  lower  and  the  higher  forms  of  re- 
ligious faith  is  not  that  the  former  alone  are  anthro- 
pomorphic, but  that  the  gross  anthropomorphism  of 
the  lower  faiths  is  changed  for  a  more  refined  anthro- 
pomorphism in  the  higher.  There  is  an  anthropomor- 
phism which  attributes  to  God  human  limitations  and 
imperfections;    there  is  an  anthropomorphism  which 

*  Exodus,  xxxiii,  18-23. 

309 


The  Personality  of  God 

attributes  to  God  the  perfect  ideals  which  man  strug- 
gles after  and  forever  fails  to  reach.  But  religion, 
low  or  high,  in  its  origin,  its  evidence,  and  its  essential 
nature,  is  anthropomorphic. 

But,  while  all  religion  is  anthropomorphic,  it  is  nev- 
ertheless true  that  anthropomorphism  has  ever  been 
the  weakness  of  religious  faith.  Man  is  ever  subject 
to  conflicting  motives,  hence  his  conduct  is  always  in 
greater  or  less  degree  fickle  and  capricious.  His  ac- 
tions can  never  be  predicted  with  any  near  approach 
to  certainty.  But  very  early  in  the  experience  of  the 
human  race  it  came  to  be  recognized  that  many  classes 
of  natural  phenomena  can  be  predicted  with  substan- 
tial certainty.  *'While  the  earth  remaineth,  seedtime 
and  harvest,  and  cold  and  heat,  and  summer  and  win- 
ter, and  day  and  night  shall  not  cease."  The  contrast 
between  the  predictability  of  natural  phenomena  and 
the  unpredictability  of  human  actions  revealed  the 
weakness  of  anthropomorphic  faith.  It  was,  I  believe, 
Adam  Smith  who  first  called  attention  to  the  remark- 
able fact  that  gravitation  has  never  been  deified.  There 
have  been  gods  of  sunshine  and  of  storm,  gods  of  birth 
and  of  death,  but  never  a  god  presiding  over  that  mys- 
terious power  which  brings  all  heavy  bodies  down  to 
the  earth.  The  obvious  reason  for  this  exception  to  the 
general  deification  of  natural  agencies  and  potencies  is 
that  the  absolute  uniformity  of  gravitation  renders  it 
impossible  to  attribute  its  action  to  the  will  of  a  fickle 
and  capricious  being  like  man  himself  or  like  the  dei- 
ties made  in  man's  image.    This  striking  exception  to 

310 


Weakness  of  Anthropomorphism 

the  polytheistic  explanation  of  nature  is  a  premonition 
of  the  "conflict  of  science  and  religion"  which  has 
made  so  large  a  part  of  the  history  of  theological  opin- 
ion in  the  monotheistic  stage  of  religion.  For,  as  man's 
knowledge  of  nature  increases,  class  after  class  of  phys- 
ical phenomena  is  transferred  from  the  realm  of  the 
unpredictable  and  seemingly  capricious  to  the  realm  of 
the  predictable  and  the  law-governed. 

The  fact  that  natural  events  can  be  predicted,  in- 
stead of  leading  to  doubt  or  denial  of  personality  in 
the  power  that  dominates  nature,  should  have  led  men 
to  a  recognition  of  the  difference  between  finite  and 
infinite  personality.  The  brute  has  a  nature,  but  no 
character.  He  is  governed  irresistibly  by  the  impulse 
of  each  moment,  responding  to  every  stimulus  from 
the  external  world  which  may  affect  his  nervous  gan- 
glia. It  is  man's  prerogative  to  choose  among  the 
impulses  of  nature,  and  thus,  by  the  exercise  of  free 
will,  to  build  upon  the  foundation  of  nature  the  super- 
structure of  character.  With  God,  perfect  from  all 
eternity  and  changeless  in  his  perfection,  nature  and 
character  are  one.  With  perfect  wisdom  and  perfect 
goodness,  there  can  be  no  conflict  of  motives,  no 
change  of  conduct.  With  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
conditions,  every  action  of  a  perfect  being  could  be 
infallibly  predicted.  Freedom  of  the  will  is  the  heaven- 
ward ladder  by  which  we  climb  from  the  animal  to 
the  divine.  If  we  could  reach  that  goal,  our  actions 
would  be  predictable,  like  those  of  God.  That  higher 
anthropomorphism  which  attributes  to  God,  not  man's 


The  Personality  of  God 

limitations  and  imperfections,  but  man's  unattained  and 
unattainable  ideals,  would  have  found  no  incompati- 
bility between  the  uniformities  of  nature  and  the  per- 
sonality of  tfie  Power  which  dominates  nature.  Thus 
the  conflict  of  science  and  religion  might  have  been 
averted. 

But  men  were  not  ready  for  that  higher  anthropo- 
morphism. They  clung  to  the  lower  anthropomor- 
phism which  fancied  God  "altogether  such  an  one 
as"  themselves.  They  could  recognize  no  personality 
free  ffom  fickleness  and  caprice.  They  could  recognize 
personal  volition  only  in  phenomena  unpredictable  and 
apparently  lawless.  A  man  may  make  a  clock,  wind  it 
up,  and  leave  it  to  run,  occasionally  interfering  with  its 
movements  by  moving  the  hands  backward  or  for- 
ward, or  by  shortening  or  lengthening  the  pendulum. 
Then  there  will  be  uniformity  in  the  ordinary  move- 
ments of  the  clock,  personal  will  and  caprice  in  the 
occasional  interferences.  By  some  such  conception 
theistic  philosophy  sought  to  take  account  of  the  uni- 
formity of  nature  and  the  apparent  breaches  of  that 
uniformity.  The  universe  was  conceived  as  a  gigantic 
mechanism,  which  God,  the  great  artificer,  constructed 
and  set  in  motion  at  some  time  in  the  remote  past, 
thereafter  only  interposing  on  occasions  more  or  less 
rare  to  modify  the  rhythm  of  its  movements.  By  this 
conception  divine  agency  was  removed  from  nature, 
except  in  the  initial  act  of  creation  and  in  occasional 
interpositions.  God  was  seen  only  in  apparent  gaps  in 
the  continuity  of  nature. 

312 


The  Conflict  of  Science  and  Religion 

So  there  came  a  departure  from  the  universal  primi- 
tive faith  in  the  immanence  of  God.  Animism  of 
course  identifies  every  natural  object  with  the  indwell- 
ing personality.  The  stone  is  itself  the  god  that  strikes 
the  savage  when  he  stubs  his  toe.  In  a  higher  stage 
of  religious  development,  the  poets  are  the  priests  and 
prophets  of  polytheistic  nature-worship.  The  Shining 
One  (Dyaus,  Zevg)  is  at  once  the  bright  sky  and  the 
deity  that  glorifies  it.  In  the  monotheism  of  Hebrew 
bards,  God  was  always  conceived  as  immanent  in  na- 
ture. He  brings  ''forth  Mazzaroth  in  his  season,"  and 
guides  "Arcturus  with  his  sons."  "With  clouds  he 
covereth  the  light."  "He  giveth  rain  upon  the  earth." 
"He  giveth  snow  like  wool."  "The  God  of  glory 
thundereth."     "His  lightnings  enlightened  the  world." 

But  the  faith  in  the  divine  immanence  which  had 
glorified  nature  for  Greek  and  Jew  alike  was  aban- 
doned by  popular  theology.  Nature  became  godless. 
The  "carpenter  God"  was  an  absentee  God. 

With  this  notion  that  the  ordinary  course  of  nature 
is  independent  of  divine  activity,  and  that  God  is  to 
be  seen  only  in  the  seeming  gaps  in  the  continuity  of 
nature,  the  "conflict  of  science  and  religion"  becomes 
inevitable.  For  the  whole  tendency  of  science  is  to  fill 
the  supposed  gaps  in  the  continuity  of  nature,  and  thus, 
as  it  appears,  exclude  God  from  the  universe  altogether. 
One  by  one,  science  annexes  to  the  realm  of  law  the 
districts  in  which  lawless  personal  will  had  been  sup- 
posed to  reign.  It  leaves  no  place  for  the  Divine 
Artisan.     Men  who  no  longer  saw  God  in  the  sunrise 

313 


The  Personality  of  God 

and  sunset,  crouched  in  superstitious  terror  at  the  man- 
ifestation of  divine  anger  in  the  ecHpse,  until  science 
showed  that  the  echpse  was  only  a  less  frequent  mani- 
festation of  the  same  system  of  law  which  is  shown 
in  sunrise  and  sunset.  Then  the  darkness  of  the  eclipse 
became  as  godless  as  the  darkness  of  night.  Banished 
from  astronomy,  God  seemed  to  find  an  asylum  in  the 
realm  of  meteorology,  for  the  changes  of  weather  seem 
at  first  sight  sufficiently  capricious  for  the  most  grossly 
anthropomorphic  deity.  But,  when  the  coming  storm 
can  be  predicted  though  not  even  "a  little  cloud  like  a 
man's  hand"  can  be  seen,  a  God  of  tempest  becomes  as 
superfluous  as  a  God  of  sun  or  moon.  The  tendency 
of  science  to  close  up  the  seeming  gaps  in  the  con- 
tinuity of  nature  has  found  its  supreme  manifestation 
in  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  The 
nebular  theory  showed  that  there  was  no  breach  of 
continuity  in  the  origin  of  planets;  the  evolutionary 
geology  showed  that  there  was  no  breach  of  conti- 
nuity in  the  development  of  the  earth's  physical  fea- 
tures ;  and  the  evolutionary  biology  showed  that  there 
was  no  breach  of  continuity  in  the  origin  of  new  spe- 
cies, and  suggested,  on  the  ground  of  analogy,  the  prob- 
ability that  there  was  no  breach  of  continuity  in  the 
origin  of  life  itself.  It  was,  indeed,  this  stopping  of 
the  gaps  in  which  alone  the  popular  theology  found 
the  manifestation  of  God,  that  caused  the  agony  of 
terror  with  which  the  theory  of  organic  evolution  was 
regarded  for  two  decades  or  more  after  the  publica- 
tion of  "The  Origin  of  Species." 

314 


Continuity  of  Nature 

But  analogy  goes  still  further  in  the  direction  of 
maintaining  the  continuity  of  nature.  The  nebular 
theory  traces  the  origin  of  the  solar  system  from  a 
nebula — most  probably  a  swarm  of  meteors.  But  can 
we  imagine  that  the  nebula  was  absolutely  the  begin- 
ning? Does  not  analogy  point  to  the  belief  that  the 
nebula  itself  was  evolved  from  some  earlier  condition 
of  the  matter  of  the  solar  system?  And,  when  the 
solar  system  shall  have  finished  this  cycle  of  its  ex- 
istence, and  the  dissipation  of  energy  shall  have 
brought  the  present  life  of  the  world  to  an  end,  can 
we  expect  an  absolute  end,  or  must  we  rather  look  for 
the  beginning  of  a  new  chapter  of  evolution?  Again, 
can  we  look  upon  the  atoms  which  are  the  units  of 
chemical  change  as  being  ultimate  and  inexplicable 
facts — changeless  since  the  supposed  beginning  of  the 
universe?  Few  philosophical  chemists  would  be  con- 
tent to  rest  in  that  supposition.  All  analogy  would 
lead  us  to  believe  that  the  present  atomic  constitution 
of  matter  is  derived  by  some  sort  of  evolution  from 
some  unknown  earlier  condition.  Analogy  is  indeed  a 
treacherous  guide,  and  often  leads  us  astray.  But  it 
is  no  less  true  that  analogy  is  a  guide  that  conducts 
us  to  the  broadest  and  noblest  outlooks  that  the  human 
intellect  can  attain.  We  must  follow  her  cautiously, 
indeed,  but  it  is  a  foolish  timidity  that  refuses  to  follow 
her  at  all.  It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that  no  con- 
clusion resting  only  on  analogy  can  be  dogmatically 
asserted.  But  a  qualified  and  tentative  acceptance  of 
the  teachings  of  analogy  is  rational  and  prudent. 


The  Personality  of  God 

Thus  science,  in  its  well-established  conclusions,  and 
yet  more  in  its  analogical  suggestions,  contradicts  the 
notion  of  the  "carpenter  God."  It  has  no  place  for  a 
God  who  dwells  only  in  the  breaches  of  continuity  in 
nature.  But,  as  we  have  already  seen,  this  phase  of  the 
conflict  between  science  and  religion  might  have  been 
entirely  avoided,  if  men  had  been  able  to  rise  above 
that  lower  anthropomorphism  which  attributes  to  God 
the  limitation,  the  imperfection,  the  caprice  of  man. 
The  uniformity  of  nature  is  no  contradiction  to  per- 
sonal will,  but  only  to  the  personal  will  of  a  finite,  im- 
perfect, changeful  being.  The  will  of  a  God  who  "is 
not  a  man  that  he  should  lie,  neither  the  son  of  man 
that  he  should  repent"* — a  God  changeless  because 
perfect  from  eternity, — is  not  incompatible  with  the 
uniformity  of  nature:  nay,  is  itself  the  ground  of  the 
uniformity  of  nature.  Science  tends  to  leave  no  gaps 
in  w^hich  the  Divine  Artisan  can  find  an  asylum.  But 
science  has  no  contradiction  to  the  faith  in  a  God  omni- 
present and  immanent — a  God  who  dwells  in  the  con- 
tinuity of  nature,  not  in  the  supposed  breaches  of 
continuity. 

We  must  pause,  however,  for  a  parenthetic  notice 
of  a  remarkable  argument  by  which  two  eminent  scien- 
tific men  have  sought  to  re-establish  the  faith  in  a  "car- 
penter God."  Sir  John  F.  W.  Herschel  asserted,  and 
Professor  Clerk  Maxwell  more  recently  endorsed  the 
assertion,  that  atoms  have  the  character  of  a  "manu- 
factured article,"  and  must  therefore  be  held  not  to 

*  Numbers,  xxiii,  19. 
316 


Atoms  Said  to  be  Manufactured  Articles 

be  eternal,  nor  to  have  been  evolved,  but  to  have  been 
made  by  a  Divine  Manufacturer  at  some  definite  time 
in  the  past.*  This  stamp  of  a  ''manufactured  article," 
from  which  so  tremendous  a  conclusion  is  drawn,  is 
seen  in  the  supposed  absolute  likeness  of  the  atoms  of 
any  particular  element.  Whether  the  atoms  of  hydro- 
gen are  detected  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  sun,  or  are 
liberated  by  the  decomposition  of  water  on  the  earth, 
the  position  of  the  lines  which  they  show  in  the  spec- 
troscope appears  to  be  absolutely  identical.  But  ob- 
viously the  apparent  identity  of  the  spectral  lines  proves 
only  that  the  atoms  are  so  nearly  alike  that,  with  our 
present  means  of  research,  we  can  detect  no  differences 
between  them.  When  we  are  speaking  of  things  of 
which  we  know  so  little  as  we  know  of  atoms,  there  is 
logically  a  boundless  difference  between  saying  that 
we  know  no  difference  between  the  atoms  of  hydrogen, 
and  saying  that  we  know  there  is  no  difference.  The 
assertion  of  absolute  likeness  of  atoms,  upon  which  so 
far-reaching  a  conclusion  is  based,  goes  immeasurably 
far  beyond  the  evidence.  It  is  pretty  certain  that  in 
many  cases  the  molecules  in  an  optically  homogeneous 
crystal  are  not  exactly  alike,  but  only  approximately 
alike.  It  is,  on  grounds  of  general  analogy,  probable 
that  atoms  of  hydrogen  are  only  approximately  alike. 
It  is  not  unlikely  that  more  refined  modes  of  research 
may  sometime  detect  differences  between  them.  The 
argument  of  Herschel  and  Maxwell  has  received,  on 
account  of  the  high  and  well-deserved  reputation  of  its 

*  Encyclopczdta  Britannica^  art.  Atom. 


The  Personality  of  God 

authors,  an  amount  of  consideration  which  on  its  own 
merits  it  does  not  deserve.  Surely  it  is  far  more  phil- 
osophical to  accept  the  conclusions  to  which  we  are 
pointed  by  all  analogies  of  scientific  thought,  than  to 
contradict  those  conclusions  on  evidence  so  weak.* 

The  obvious  goal  to  which  the  analogies  of  scientific 
thought  are  leading  us,  is  the  belief  that  the  series  of 
evolutionary  changes  which  we  see  stretching  back- 
ward into  the  remote  past  and  forward  into  the  indefi- 
nite future,  has  neither  beginning  nor  end;  that  the 
nebulae  from  which  systems  have  been  evolved  were 
themselves  evolved;  that  existing  forms  of  matter 
were  evolved  from  other  forms  that  we  know  not, 
and  may  pass  into  other  forms  of  matter  equally  un- 
known; that  creative  Power  and  creative  Intelligence 
have  been  eternally  immanent  in  an  eternal  universe. 
I  cannot  help  thinking  that  Christian  theology  will 
be  the  gainer  by  the  acceptance  of  such  a  view.  We 
shall  be  relieved  from  the  incongruous  notion  of  a 
benevolent  Deity  spending  an  eternity  in  solitude  and 
idleness.  The  contemplation  of  his  own  attributes 
might  seem  a  fitting  employment  for  a  Hindoo  Brahm. 
It  hardly  fits  the  character  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  of 
whom  we  are  told  that  he  "worketh  hitherto. "f  Surely 
no  suggestion  that  has  been  offered  relieves  of  its  enor- 
mous unreasonableness  the  conception  of  the  eternal 

*  For  an  admirable  criticism  of  the  position  of  Herschel  and  Maxwell,  see 
Ward,  Naturalism  and  Agnosticism,  vol.  i,  p.  99.  The  notion  of  the  muta- 
bility and  probable  evolution  of  atoms  finds  confirmation  in  the  recent  re- 
searches on  radium  and  other  radio-active  substances.  See  lectures  by  Sir 
William  Crookes  and  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  respectively,  entitled,  Modern  Views  on 
Matter,  the  former  published  in  Science,  1903,  vol.  xvii,  p.  993,  the  latter  issued 
in  pamphlet  form  by  the  Clarendon  Press.  t  John,  v,  17. 

318 


Universe  Probably  Eternal 

solitude  of  God.  The  notion  of  the  mutual  compla- 
cency of  the  persons  of  the  Trinity,  in  which  some 
theologians  have  sought  relief,  is  not  much  more  satis- 
factory than  that  of  divine  self-contemplation,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  it  involves  a  conception  of  the 
Trinity  which  verges  towards  tritheism.  And  the 
notion  that  eternal  ages  were  spent  in  excogitating  the 
best  possible  plan  for  a  created  universe  contradicts 
any  intelligent  conception  of  divine  omniscience  and 
perfection.* 

But  is  not  the  conception  of  God  as  eternally  im- 
manent in  an  eternal  universe  pantheism?  Yes,  and 
no.  Certainly  it  is  a  phase  of  pantheism.  But  the  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  usually  called  pantheism  denies  per- 
sonality, free  will,  morality,  alike  in  man  and  in  God. 
In  the  line  of  thought  which  we  have  followed,  on 
the  contrary,  we  have  started  with  the  personality  of 
man,  and  at  every  stage  have  firmly  held  to  the  per- 
sonality of  God.  Thus  we  find  the  ground  of  all  ex- 
istence in  the  will  of  a  personal  God.  Matter  affects 
our  senses  only  as  it  is  a  vehicle  of  force.  Nay,  the 
question  recurs  again  and  again  to  students  both  of 
physics  and  of  metaphysics  whether  matter  is  anything 
but  force.  The  supreme  truth  of  theistic  philosophy 
to  which  such  a  query  points,  is  that  matter  has  no 
existence  apart  from  the  continuous  energy  of  divine 
will,  "upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power." 
The  existence  of  the  material  universe  is  thus  an  eter- 
nal act  of  creation. 

*  Science^  1899,  vol.  x,  p.  950.    See  also  Bowne,  Philosophy  0/ Theism,  p.  189. 


The  Personality  of  God 

In  the  concluding  chapter  'of  his  "Mental  Physiol- 
ogy," entitled  "Mind  and  Will  in  Nature,"  William 
B.  Carpenter  has  wisely  remarked  that  the  conception 
of  theism  lies  between  the  limits  of  pantheism  and 
anthropomorphism.  The  cosmic  uniformities  which  are 
the  theme  of  science  suggest  the  idea  of  a  power  whose 
nature  is  eternal  law  immanent  in  the  universe.  But  the 
experiences  of  human  life  suggest  to  us,  as  truly  as  to 
our  savage  ancestors,  the  idea  of  volition,  intelli- 
gence, morality,  in  God.  Each  of  the  two  conceptions 
represents  a  phase  of  the  truth.  The  mysterious  Power 
"dwelling  in  the  light  which  no  man  can  approach  un- 
to, whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can  see,"  can  be  repre- 
sented in  human  language  only  symbolically.  Strictly 
speaking,  the  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  God  can 
be  true  only  in  a  symbolic  sense.  We  can  mean  noth- 
ing more  than  that  human  personality  affords  the  fittest 
symbol  to  represent  some  phase  of  the  incomprehen- 
sible nature  of  Deity.  The  language  of  pantheism 
and  that  of  anthropomorphism  are  alike  symbolic. 
Whether  we  call  God  the  Soul  of  the  universe  or 
the  Heavenly  Father,  we  are  talking  only  in  sym- 
bols. Indeed,  so  completely  are  the  resources  of 
language  limited  by  human  experience,  pantheism 
can  hardly  express  itself  without  anthropomorphic 
symbols.  The  very  phrase,  "Soul  of  the  universe," 
is  anthropomorphic. 

Anthropomorphic  symbols,  then,  are  necessary  to 
religion.  Rightly  understood,  they  do  not  contradict 
the  truest  philosophy.     The  Christian  doctrine  of  the 

320 


Law  in  Nature 

Incarnation  is  the  very  glorification  of  anthropomor- 
phism. Of  all  the  great  reconciliations  wrought  out 
by' the  revelation  of  God  in  Christ,  not  the  least  is  the 
reconciliation  between  the  human  intellect  and  the  hu- 
man heart, — between  science  and  faith, — between  the 
philosophy  that  demands  a  God  absolute,  passionless, 
and  changeless,  and  the  religious  affection  that  de- 
mands a  human  sympathy  and  love  to  which  it  can  re- 
spond. We  may  with  the  pantheist  believe  in  a  God 
eternally  immanent  in  an  eternal  universe,  and  yet, 
with  a  faith  as  simple  as  if  we  had  never  heard  of 
evolution  or  conservation  of  energy,  as  simple  as  if 
we  were  living  still  amid  the  sweet  legends  of  the 
childhood  of  the  race,  when  Jehovah  walked  "in  the 
garden  In  the  cool  of  the  day,"*  we  may  take  into  our 
lives  the  blessedness  of  divine  companionship  offered 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  "He  that  hath 
seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father. "f 

"O  Love!     O  Life!    our  faith  and  sight 

Thy  presence  maketh  one. 
As  through  transfigured  clouds  of  white 

We  trace  the  noonday  sun, 
So,  to  our  mortal  eyes  subdued, 

Flesh-veiled,  but  not  concealed, 
We  know  in  thee  the  fatherhood 

And  heart  of  God  revealed." 

Law  in  Nature 

We  have  thus  come  to  recognize  as  a  probability 
the  existence  of  a  personal  God  immanent  in  nature — 

*  Genesis,  iii,  8.  f  John,  xiv,  9. 

321 


Law  in  Nature 

a  God  transcending  all  human  thought,  yet  capable 
of  being  in  some  sense  defined  between  the  limits  of 
anthropomorphism  and  pantheism.  There  are  some 
special  topics  which  demand  our  consideration,  as 
phases  of  the  general  subject  of  the  relation  of  God  to 
the  universe.  These  special  topics  are  Providence, 
Prayer,  Miracle.  But,  before  we  discuss  these  topics, 
it  seems  desirable  to  enter  upon  a  digression  for  the 
purpose  of  reaching  as  clear  a  notion  as  possible  of 
the  exact  meaning  of  law  in  nature,  and  of  the  degree 
of  probability  of  those  propositions  which  are  com- 
monly stated  as  laws  of  nature.  This  digression  is 
necessary  because  of  the  prevalence  of  erroneous  no- 
tions of  natural  law.  Natural  law  has  been  the  fetish 
of  modern  thought,  worshiped  with  most  superstitious 
devotion  by  those  who  have  least  understanding  of  its 
real  significance.  Many  people  imagine  that  the  cause 
of  a  phenomenon  is  completely  explained  by  reference 
to  natural  law — that  natural  law  is  itself  efficient  cause. 
Many  people  imagine,  likewise,  when  they  see  a  propo- 
sition labeled  as  a  law  of  nature,  that  that  proposition 
is  invested  with  an  infallible  certainty.  It  is  therefore 
worth  while  for  us  to  consider  the  nature  and  method 
of  scientific  thought,  so  that  we  may  learn  the  true 
significance  of  natural  law. 

Science  has  nothing  to  do  with  entities.  The  scien- 
tist whose  life  is  devoted  to  the  investigation  of  the 
properties  of  matter,  cares  not,  in  so  far  as  he  is  purely 
a  scientist,  whether  matter  has  any  objective  existence 
or  not.     For  him  matter  is  simply  the  "possibility  of 

322 


Natural  Law  a  Fetish 

sensation/*  Whether  matter  is  anything  more  than 
that,  and,  if  so,  what,  are  questions  in  regard  to  which 
scientific  men,  in  so  far  as  they  are  only  scientific  men, 
are  the  most  utterly  indifferent  of  Gallios.  Science, 
again,  has  nothing  to  do  with  efficient  causes.  What 
we  call  physical  forces  are  simply  symbols,  like  the 
X,  y,  and  ^  of  the  mathematician,  which  help  us  to 
express  the  relations  between  phenomena.  When  we 
speak  of  the  force  of  gravitation,  we  mean  nothing 
more  than  that  projectiles,  planets,  and  other  bodies 
do  move  as  they  would  move  if  all  bodies  were  acted 
upon  by  a  tendency  to  approach  each  other,  varying  in 
intensity  directly  as  the  masses  and  inversely  as  the 
squares  of  the  distances.  As  to  the  nature  of  that  tend- 
ency, the  law  of  gravitation  gives  us  no  account  what- 
ever. If,  in  our  speculation,  we  go  a  step  farther,  and 
propose  to  resolve  the  force  of  gravitation  into  the 
impact  of  moving  particles  of  ether,  we  still  know  not, 
and  do  not  pretend  to  know,  what  sets  the  ether  par- 
ticles in  motion.  The  secondary  causes  with  which 
scientific  men  deal  are  simply  uniformities  of  sequence. 
As  science  knows  nothing  of  ef^cient  causes,  so  it 
utterly  ignores  final  causes.  The  universe  may  have 
been  made  by  an  intelligent  Creator;  and,  if  so,  he 
undoubtedly  had  some  purpose  in  making  it.  But 
whether  there  was  such  a  Creator,  whether  he  had  a 
purpose,  and,  if  so,  what  the  purpose  was,  are  all 
questions  with  which  science  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do.  Science,  again,  knows  nothing  of  primal  origin 
or  ultimate  destiny.     All  that  concerns  the  scientist, 

323 


Law  in  Nature 

purely  as  a  scientist,  is  that  the  system  of  uniform 
sequences  which  we  call  nature  appears  to  extend  back- 
ward for  an  indefinite  distance  into  the  past,  and  seems 
likely  to  extend  forward  for  an  indefinite  distance  into 
the  future.  Whether  that  indefinite  duration  is  in- 
finite, is  a  question  which  science  does  not  pretend 
to  decide. 

The  work  of  science  is  to  accumulate  an  increasing 
store  of  observations  of  physical  phenomena,  and  by 
comparison  and  induction  to  detect  the  laws  of  those 
phenomena — i.  e.,  the  relations  of  coexistence  or  of 
succession  which  exist  between  them.  And  such  laws, 
in  addition  to  the  facts  themselves,  comprise  the  whole 
content  of  science.  In  the  progress  of  man's  knowl- 
edge of  the  external  world,  those  phenomena  first  en- 
gage attention  which  can  be  observed  without  any 
special  appliances,  and  those  relations  are  first  per- 
ceived which  are  most  simple  and  obvious.  Subse- 
quently instruments  of  precision  enable  observations 
and  measurements  to  be  more  accurately  made.  Ob- 
jects too  minute  or  too  distant  to  be  seen  by  the  naked 
eye  are  magnified.  Ingenious  experimentation  devises 
artificial  conditions  under  which  the  relation  or  lack 
of  relation  between  any  two  phenomena  can  be  de- 
tected. Improved  mathematical  analysis  enables  the 
mind  to  become  cognizant  of  relations  which  are  too 
intricate  to  be  otherwise  perceived.  The  mind  stored 
with  multitudes  of  facts  acquires  an  almost  intuitive 
power  to  penetrate  into  the  secrets  of  nature,  and  dis- 
cern far-reaching  relations  between  phenomena  appar- 

324 


Relations  of  Coexistence  or  Succession 

ently  utterly  unconnected.  But,  In  the  very  highest 
stages  of  scientific  investigation,  the  work  is  still  abso- 
lutely nothing  but  the  accumulation  of  knowledge  of 
phenomena,  and  the  detection  of  relations  of  coexist- 
ence and  of  sequence  between  phenomena. 

When  the  savage  has  learned  to  predict  from  expe- 
rience the  continued  succession  of  day  and  night,  the 
phases  of  the  moon,  and  the  changes  of  seasons,  he 
has  already  developed  the  conception  of  natural  law — 
i.  e.,  of  a  determinate  order  of  sequence  in  phenom- 
ena. When  it  is  perceived  that  these  obvious  and 
familiar  phenomena,  in  connection  with  infrequent  and 
startling  phenomena,  such  as  eclipses,  and  phenomena 
only  observable  by  the  aid  of  the  telescope,  such  as 
the  phases  of  Venus,  can  all  be  included  and  formu- 
lated under  the  conception  of  a  number  of  spheroidal 
bodies  moving  in  elliptical  orbits  in  accordance  with 
the  principle  of  gravitation,  a  much  more  comprehen- 
sive appreciation  of  the  scope  of  natural  law  has  been 
attained.  When  it  is  perceived  that  the  same  system 
of  mutual  attractions  between  bodies  which  has  been 
assumed  in  order  to  formulate  the  actual  movements 
of  the  planets,  may  account  for  the  evolution  of  the 
planets  from  a  nebula,  and  that  thus  a  vast  number  of 
apparently  unconnected  phenomena — such  as  the  high 
temperature  of  the  sun,  the  cold  and  dead  volcanic 
surface  of  the  moon,  the  bright-lined  spectrum  of  cer- 
tain nebulae,  the  internal  heat  of  the  earth,  the  wrink- 
ling of  the  earth's  crust  into  mountain  chains — may 
all  be  brought  into  harmonious  relationship,  the  con- 

325 


Law  in  Nature 

ception  of  the  scope  of  natural  law  has  been  still  fur- 
ther widened.  But,  when  the  astronomer  plans  years 
beforehand  an  expedition  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  to  be 
in  readiness  to  observe  a  solar  eclipse  at  a  precise  point 
of  time,  or  when  the  physicist  tells  us  how  many  mil- 
lion years  ago  the  surface  of  the  earth  became  suffi- 
ciently cool  to  be  habitable,  he  has  only  traveled  some 
steps  farther  along  the  same  road  on  which  his  sav- 
age ancestor  had  already  entered,  when  that  ancestor, 
warned  by  the  diminishing  altitude  of  the  sun,  turned 
back  from  hunting  the  mammoth  with  his  stone  spears 
and  arrows,  to  gain  the  shelter  of  his  cave  dwelling 
before  nightfall. 

It  is  conceivable  that  a  mind  possessed  of  no  facul- 
ties differing  in  kind  from  ours,  and  operating  by  the 
same  sort  of  methods  as  those  which  have  achieved 
the  actual  results  of  scientific  investigation,  might  at- 
tain to  so  complete  a  knowledge  of  the  relations  of 
phenomena,  as,  by  knowing  simply  the  relative  posi- 
tions of  the  atoms  in  the  primal  nebula,  to  be  able  to 
predict  the  whole  history  of  the  solar  system,— the 
magnitudes,,  distances,  and  orbits  of  future  planets; 
the  physiographic  features  of  every  orb — continents, 
oceans,  mountains,  rivers ;  the  direction  of  every  wind, 
and  the  number  of  drops  in  every  shower;  the  precise 
moment  at  which  life  would  animate  a  globe  once  life- 
less; the  character,  number,  and  relations  of  every 
specific  form  of  life;  the  number  of  leaves  on  every 
tree,  and  the  exact  position  of  every  leaf.*     It  is  con- 

*  Actions  of  man  and  other  free  aq:ents  would  not  be  thus  predictable. 
326 


Nature  a  Cosmos,  not  a  Chaos 

ceivable  that  the  path  to  be  traversed  by  every  atom, 
and  the  changes  in  which  it  would  take  a  share,  might 
be  expressed  in  a  mathematical  formula  of  immense 
complexity,  as  truly  as  the  orbit  of  a  planet  may  be 
formulated.  But,  in  the  utmost  extension  of  science 
which  we  can  imagine,  its  entire  content  is  still  phe- 
nomena and  laws — laws  expressive  of  the  relations  of 
coexistence  and  sequence  of  phenomena. 

All  this  sort  of  work  involves,  of  course,  one  postu- 
late of  tremendous  significance:  viz.,  that  nature  is  a 
system — a  cosmos,  not  a  chaos;  and  that,  therefore, 
relations  of  coexistence  and  sequence  observed  within 
the  limits  of  our  experience  may  be  expected  to  hold 
good  beyond  those  limits.  This  postulate  is  as  unde- 
monstrable  as  the  belief  in  personal  identity,  trust- 
worthiness of  memory,  or  moral  responsibility,  or  any 
other  necessary  belief.  But,  as  in  the  case  of  other 
necessary  beliefs,  its  undemonstrability  is  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  accepted  as  the  basis  of  our  think- 
ing. It  is  well,  however,  to  notice  that  the  postulate  is 
implied  in  the  common  expectation  of  sunrise  and  sun- 
set as  truly  as  in  the  most  comprehensive  generaliza- 
tions of  science. 

The  content  of  science  is,  then,  phenomena  and  laws ; 
and  those  laws  are  simply  formulas  expressing  rela- 
tions of  coexistence  or  succession  of  phenomena.  But 
a  little  further  illustration  of  .the  conception  of  natural 
law  may  be  instructive.  A  good  illustration  of  the 
scientific  idea  of  law  is  furnished  by  mathematical 
series.    A  mathematical  series  is  a  succession  of  terms, 


Law  in  Nature 

each  one  of  which  is  derived  from  one  or  more  of  the 
preceding,  in  accordance  with  some  law.  Knowing  a 
sufficient  number  of  terms,  we  can  discover  the  law  of 
the  series ;  knowing  the  law  of  the  series,  we  can  com- 
pute any  term.  A  still  more  instructive  illustration  may 
be  found  in  the  geometrical  conception  of  curves.  A 
curve  is  conceived  as  being  generated  by  a  point  which 
moves  always  in  accordance  with  some  law.  That 
law,  mathematically  formulated,  constitutes  the  ecjua- 
tion  of  the  curve.  If  a  number  of  points  of  the  curve 
are  given,  we  can  infer  the  law  of  the  curve;  if  we 
know  the  law,  we  can  predict  any  number  of  points, 
tracing  the  curve,  it  may  be,  from  minus  infinity  to 
plus  infinity. 

The  scientific  conception  of  nature  is  that  every 
group  of  related  phenomena  forms  such  a  series — 
such  a  curve.  Knowing  by  observation  a  certain  num- 
ber of  terms  of  the  series,  or  points  of  the  curve — that 
is,  a  certain  number  of  phenomena, — we  make  a  guess, 
or,  in  technical  language,  an  hypothesis,  as  to  the  law. 
By  means  of  that  hypothetical  law,  we  predict  other 
terms  of  the  series,  or  points  of  the  curve — that  is, 
other  phenomena  which  hitherto  have  been  unobserved, 
or  whose  relation  to  the  subject  in  question  has  been 
unrecognized.  So  far  as  opportunity  may  offer,  the 
predictions  are  compared  with  the  results  of  observa- 
tion. So  long  as  prediction  and  observation  agree  ex- 
actly or  approximately,  it  is  assumed  to  be  probable 
that  our  hypothesis  is  exactly  or  approximately  true. 
If  our  hypothetical  law  departs  widely  from  the  truth, 


Mathematical  Illustrations 

the  departure  will  be  shown,  sooner  or  later,  by  a  wide 
discrepancy  between  prediction  and  observation. 

What  I  have  said  thus  in  the  abstract  finds  a  typical 
concrete  illustration  in  Kepler's  classical  discovery  of 
the  character  of  the  planetary  orbits.  Every  known 
and  recorded  position  of  a  planet  was  a  point  in  a 
curve;  and  the  contemplation  of  those  known  points 
suggested  to  the  fertile  imagination  of  Kepler  hypothe- 
sis after  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  law  of  the  curve. 
At  last  the  hypothesis  was  reached  that  the  planetary 
orbits  were  ellipses  with  the  sun  in  the  focus;  and 
with  that  hypothesis  all  observations  were  found  to 
coincide.  The  conclusion  thus  established  has  never 
been  questioned. 

These  illustrations,  I  believe,  correctly  set  forth  the 
general  character  of  scientific  research.  The  collection 
of  a  greater  or  less  number  of  observations;  the  in- 
vention of  an  hypothesis  suggested  by  those  observa- 
tions; the  prediction,  on  the  basis  of  that  hypothesis, 
of  phenomena  hitherto  unobserved  or  unregarded ;  the 
comparison  of  prediction  with  observation,  and  the 
consequent  verification  or  refutation  of  the  hypothe- 
sis— these  are  the  ordinary  steps  in  any  scientific 
investigation. 

If  we  carry  out  our  geometrical  illustration  some- 
what further  in  detail,  it  will  yield  us  some  interesting 
suggestions  in  regard  to  the  conditions  governing  the 
relative  degree  of  probability  of  different  scientific  be- 
liefs. Let  us  suppose,  then,  that  we  are  endeavoring 
to  trace  the  whole  course  of  a  curve  of  which  certain 

329 


Law  in  Nature 

points  are  given.  It  is  obvious,  in  the  first  place,  that, 
the  more  numerous  are  the  given  points,  the  more 
Hkely  shall  we  be  to  form  a  true  hypothesis  in  regard 
to  the  law  of  the  curve.  Other  things  being  equal,  the 
probability  of  our  scientific  hypotheses  will  be  in  direct 
ratio  to  the  extent  of  our  knowledge  of  the  phenomena 
concerned. 

Again,  if  we  have  a  certain  number  of  points  of 
the  curve  given,  it  is  evident  that  there  will  be  much 
less  liability  of  considerable  error  in  conjecturing  those 
portions  of  the  curve  which  are  intermediate  between 
some  of  the  known  points,  than  in  conjecturing  those 
portions  of  the  curve  which  lie  outside  the  limits  of 
the  known  points.  Accordingly,  if  our  observations 
of  a  series  of  phenomena  are  distributed  over  a  given 
range  in  respect  to  time,  space,  temperature,  pressure, 
or  any  other  variable  condition,  we  shall  be  much  more 
likely  to  make  predictions  exactly  or  approximately 
correct  in  regard  to  phenomena  lying  within  the  limits 
of  the  extreme  observations  already  made,  than  in  re- 
gard to  those  which  lie  beyond  those  limits.  In  other 
words,  interpolation  is  a  much  safer  process  than  that 
which  has  been  called,  in  barbarous  defiance  of  ety- 
mology, by  the  name  of  extrapolation.  Yet  it  must 
always  be  remembered  that  there  is  an  uncertainty  in 
interpolation,  even  between  points  which  are  very  close 
together.  Unless  the  equation  of  a  curve  is  exactly 
known,  we  can  never  be  sure  that  the  curvature  is  uni- 
form between  any  two  points,  however  near  to  each 
other  those  points  may  be.     There  may  be,  for  aught 

330 


Interpolation  and  Extrapolation 

we  know,  a  cusp  or  a  point  of  inflection  between  those 
two  points.  The  man  who,  knowing  the  specific  grav- 
ity of  water  at  32°  and  at  46°  Fahrenheit,  should  infer 
that  the  specific  gravity  of  water  at  39°  would  be  the 
mean  of  those  two,  would  be  of  course  in  error.  A 
possibility  of  like  error  must  exist  in  all  cases  of 
interpolation. 

Again,  if  we  endeavor  to  prolong  our  curve  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  farthest  point  which  is  given,  it  is 
evident  that  the  probability  of  considerable  error  must 
increase  with  each  unit  of  distance  through  which  we 
proceed.  Our  processes  of  extrapolation  become  more 
and  more  uncertain  as  we  proceed  farther  and  farther 
beyond  those  limits,  in  time,  space,  temperature,  pres- 
sure, or  other  variable  condition,  within  which  our 
observations  have  been  made.  The  position  of  the 
planets  may  be  calculated  with  great  accuracy  some 
centuries  in  advance ;  but  he  would  be  a  very  rash  man 
who  would  attempt  to  make  an  Ephemeris  for  the  year 
of  our  Lord  1,000,000,000.  A  man  who  knew  the 
behavior  of  water  at  temperatures  varying  from  50° 
to  150°  Fahrenheit  could,  on  the  basis  of  his  observa- 
tions, draw  very  just  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  be- 
havior of  water  at  temperatures  somewhat  below  50° 
and  somewhat  above  150°;  but,  if  he  attempted  to 
carry  his  processes  of  extrapolation  beyond  the  limits 
of  32°  on  the  one  hand  and  212°  on  the  other,  he 
would  undoubtedly  be  completely  in  error  in  his  results. 
We  know  by  experiment  how  the  fusion  point  is  af- 
fected by  moderate  increase  of  pressure  in  the  case  of 

331 


Law  in  Nature 

rather  fusible  bodies,  as  sulphur  and  spermaceti ;  but 
how  the  fusion  point  of  the  materials  in  the  interior 
of  the  globe  may  be  affected  by  the  enormous  pressure 
of  four  thousand  miles  of  rock,  is  a  different  ciuestion. 
Geology,  reasoning  backward  from  the  present  to  the 
past,  can  reconstruct  with  considerable  accuracy  the 
geographical,  climatic,  and  other  conditions  of  Qua- 
ternary and  Tertiary  times ;  but  its  pictures  grow  more 
and  more  indistinct  as  the  vision  is  prolonged  farther 
backward  into  the  past,  and  the  condition  of  the  earth 
in  Archaean  time  is  very  largely  unknown.  The  biol- 
ogist succeeds  very  well  in  tracing  some  of  the  later 
steps  of  the  evolution  of  organic  forms;  but  the  ori- 
gin of  the  various  sub-kingdoms  whose  representatives 
swarmed  in  the  Cambrian  seas  is  shrouded  in  mystery ; 
and  we  have  scarcely  a  conjecture  to  relieve  our  abso- 
lute ignorance  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  earliest 
forms  of  life.  The  degree  of  probability  of  our  con- 
clusions diminishes  rapidly,  as  those  conclusions  tran- 
scend the  limits  of  observation. 

Again,  a  curve  of  one  of  the  higher  degrees  often 
consists  of  two  or  more  branches  apparently  entirely 
distinct  from  each  other ;  and  it  may  happen  that  one 
of  these  branches  has  in  its  general  form  a  close  re- 
semblance to  a  complete  curve  of  lower  degree.  Thus, 
the  curve  which  is  represented  by  the  equation, — 


ay  =  ±vx{x  —  b)(x  —  c), 

has,  for  certain  values  of  the  constants,  an  oval  branch 
whose  form  is  very  similar  to  that  of  an  ellipse,  and 

332 


Uncertainty  of  Scientific  Conclusions 

an  infinite  parabolic  branch.  If  we  had  given  a  num- 
ber of  points  of  that  oval  branch,  and  no  points  of  the 
other  branch  of  the  curve,  our  conjecture  would  natu- 
rally be  that  the  curve  was  an  ellipse;  and,  if  the  ob- 
served points  did  not  exactly  correspond  with  the  equa- 
tion of  the  ellipse,  we  should  probably  suppose  that  the 
slight  discrepancy  was  due  simply  to  errors  of  measure- 


FiG.  14.— Curve  represented  by  equation,  ay  —  ±^ x{x  —  b\x  —  c). 

ment.  We  should,  of  course,  be  in  error.  The  curve 
is  not  of  the  second  degree,  but  of  the  third  degree. 
No  part  of  it  is  an  ellipse.  The  resemblance  of  a  part 
of  it  to  an  ellipse  is  only  approximate.  I  believe  that 
we  must  recognize  the  possibility  of  an  analogous 
error  in  our  scientific  investigations.  A  law  which 
appears  to  be  thoroughly  verified  by  the  coincidence 
between  prediction  and  observation  may  yet  be  true 

333 


Law  in  Nature 

only  approximately  and  within  limits,  It  is  possible, 
for  instance,  that  the  Newtonian  law  of  gravitation 
may  be  only  an  approximation  to  the  truth.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  true  law  may  be  a  vastly  more  complex 
one,  which  would  include  in  a  single  formula  not  only 
the  relations  of  sensible  masses  of  matter  at  sensible 
distances,  but  also  the  relations  of  molecules  and  atoms 
at  infinitesimal  distances. 

Our  geometrical  illustration  may  afford  us  yet  an- 
other instructive  suggestion.  If,  in  the  equation  which 
we  have  quoted,  we  make  b  equal  to  0,  the  equation 
will  reduce  to  the  form, — 


af  =  ±xVx  —  c; 

and  we  shall  then  find,  corresponding  to  the  oval 
branch  of  the  former  curve,  only  a  single  point,  as 
shown  at  O,  in  Fig.  15.  The  curve  will  thus  con- 
sist of  an  infinite  parabolic  branch  and  a  single 
isolated  point.  In  such  a  curve,  there  might  be 
given  a  very  large  number  of  points  distributed 
along  the  parabolic  branch,  and  yet  their  contem- 
plation might  afford  us  no  suggestion  of  the  isolated 
point  that  lies  outside  of  that  branch.  There  must 
be  always  an  analogous  possibility,  in  regard  to  those 
natural  laws  which  seem  to  be  most  thoroughly 
verified,  that  there  may  be  outlying,  isolated  phenom- 
ena, apparently  entirely  unrelated  to  the  law,  which 
would  yet  be  included  in  a  true  statement  of  the  law. 
Such  outlying  phenomena,  analogous  to  isolated  points 
in  complex  curves,  would  afford  us,  from  the  physical 

334 


Physical  Explanation  of  Miracle 

side,  a  conception  of  miracles.  From  this  point  of 
view,  we  recognize  that  a  miracle  need  not  be  regarded 
as  a  suspension  or  violation  of  law.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  physical  significance  of  a  miracle  v^ould  be,  that 


I 


Fig.  15. — Curve  represented  by  equation,  ay  =  ±xi^x  —  c. 

the  true  law  of  nature  is  more  complex  than  our  sup- 
posed law — that  our  supposed  law  is  only  true  approxi- 
mately within  limits ;  and  that  the  true  law,  in  its  full 
complexity,  includes  the  apparently  isolated  phenom- 

335 


Law  in  Nature 

ena,  as  well  as  the  phenomena  which  are  apparently 
normal.  It  may  be  that  the  rising  of  Jesus  from  the 
dead  was  as  truly  natural  as  the  failure  of  other  men 
to  rise.  It  is  unnecessary  to  remark  that  the  theolog- 
ical conception  of  miracle  would  require  another  ele- 
ment to  be  included  in  the  definition;  namely,  coinci- 
dence in  time  and  place  between  such  an  extraordinary 
event  and  some  moral  or  religious  revelation.  The 
question  of  the  probability  or  provability  of  miracle 
will  be  considered  later.*  All  that  concerns  our  pres- 
ent line  of  discussion  is  the  recognition  that  a  miracle 
must  always  and  everywhere  be  among  the  physical 
possibilities. 

This  long  digression  has  perhaps  enabled  us  more 
clearly  to  recognize  the  significance  of  natural  law.  We 
have  learned  that  a  natural  law  is  a  statement  of  a 
relation  of  coexistence  or  succession  in  phenomena, 
reached  by  induction  from  a  limited  and  partial  expe- 
rience, sometimes  attaining  a  very  high  degree  of 
probability,  but  never  able  to  reach  the  standard  of 
certainty.  We  have  learned  that  law  in  nature  has 
absolutely  no  shadow  of  causal  significance.  There  are 
two  and  only  two  opinions  possible  in  regard  to  the 
cause  of  those  uniform  relations  of  coexistence  and 
succession  which  science  brings  to  light.  The  cause  is 
to  be  found  either  in  blind,  self-acting  forces  inherent 
in  matter,  or  in  the  will  of  an  immanent  Intelligence. 
The  former  view  is  held  by  all  atheists,  most  deists, 
and  many  Christians.     The  atheist  of  course  holds 

*  Page  351. 

336 


Providence 

that  matter  is  eternal,  and  that  its  forces  are  not  only 
self-acting  but  self-existent.  Deists  have  generally 
believed  that  the  material  universe  was  created  by  a 
Deity  who  in  the  act  of  creation  endowed  matter  with 
its  wondrous  potencies.  Many  Christians  have  held 
the  same  view,  modified  only  by  the  doctrine  of  occa- 
sional divine  interposition.  While  the  ordinary  affairs 
of  the  universe  are  carried  on  by  the  self-acting 
forces  with  which  matter  has  been  endowed,  God  is 
supposed  occasionally  to  alter  the  action  of  the  ma- 
chinery by  the  interposition  of  his  personal  activity. 
These  interpositions  are  called  special  providences  or 
miracles,  according  to  the  degree  in  which  the  event 
is  startling  and  unexpected.  The  form  of  conflict  of 
science  and  religion  to  which  this  doctrine  of  divine 
interposition  inevitably  leads  has  been  already  suffi- 
ciently discussed.  God  is  everywhere  or  nowhere  in 
the  universe.  He  does  everything  or  nothing.  All 
philosophic  theists  must  hold  that  the  cause  of  the  uni- 
formities of  nature  is  to  be  found  in  the  will  of  an 
immanent  Intelligence,  whose  plans  are  changeless  be- 
cause his  wisdom  is  perfect  from  all  eternity.  Not  an 
atom  of  matter  has  ever  changed  its  position  but  in 
obedience  to  his  will. 

Providence 

The  doctrine  of  Providence  is  an  obvious  corollary 
of  the  doctrine  of  immanent  intelligence  in  the  uni- 
verse. For,  if  all  events  in  nature  obey  the  will  of  in- 
telligent  personality,    then    all   events   in   nature    are 

337 


Providence 

purposeful.  Nor  are  we  altogether  ignorant  of  the 
purposes  which  dominate  the  universe.  Nature  itself 
reveals  in  some  degree  the  divine  benevolence.  In  the 
relation  of  the  universe  to  human  conduct  there  is 
some  evidence  of  "a  power  which  makes  for  righteous- 
ness." But  Christianity  brings  clearer  revelation  of 
the  supreme  moral  purpose  of  the  divine  administra- 
tion. The  God  revealed  in  Christ  Jesus  is  a  God  whose 
supreme  end  is  holiness.  The  kingdoms  of  nature  are 
tributary  to  the  kingdom  of  grace.  Thus  we  recog- 
nize that  providence  is  not  an  exceptional  interference 
with  the  course  of  nature.  The  course  of  nature  is 
itself  providence.  Natural  law  and  providence  are  not, 
as  men  have  fancied,  conceptions  contradictory  and 
mutually  exclusive.  Law  and  providence  are  only  two 
phases  of  the  same  truth,  like  the  two  sides  of  the 
fabled  gold  and  silver  shield.  The  very  etymology  of 
the  word  should  have  taught  us  that  pro-vidence  is  not 
afterthought,  but  forethought — foreseeing,  and  con- 
sequent foreordaining :  not  the  tinkering  of  a  machine 
so  clumsily  constructed  that  its  working  fails  to  accom- 
plish its  designer's  purpose — the  shoving  backward  or 
forward  of  the  hands  of  a  clock  which  fails  to  keep 
good  time ;  but  the  orderly  working  of  infinite  wisdom 
whose  eternal  plans  need  no  modification  because  per- 
fect always. 

And,  when  we  come  thus  to  think  of  all  nature  as 
a  system  designed  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  God's 
providence,  we  need  not  trouble  ourselves  much  about 
the  foolish  question,  whether  God's  providence  is  spe- 

338 


Providence  General  and  Special 

cial  or  only  general — whether  it  extends  to  all  details 
of  individual  experience  or  only  to  the  general  course 
of  things.  The  question  could  never  have  been  raised 
but  by  men  whose  conception  of  God  was  controlled 
by  that  lower  type  of  anthropomorphism  which  at- 
tributes to  God  human  limitations  and  imperfections. 
Our  finite  intelligence  cannot  think  of  many  things  at 
a  time.  When  we  think  of  a  general  plan,  we  lose 
sight  of  details ;  when  we  concentrate  our  attention  on 
details,  we  lose  sight  of  generalizations.  Attributing 
the  same  psychological  limitations  to  the  Deity,  we  have 
imagined  that  he  could  not  consider  our  personal  expe- 
riences while  he  was  evolving  into  planets  some  far-off 
nebula ;  and  that,  if  he  condescended  to  sympathize  with 
some  little  human  sorrow,  he  would  forget  to  keep 
Uranus  and  Neptune  in  their  orbits.  The  thought  only 
needs  to  be  distinctly  formulated  for  its  absurdity  and 
impiety  to  be  manifest.  If  we  believe  in  a  God  at  all, 
we  can  believe  in  a  God  who  is  competent  to  manage 
the  universe  in  gross  and  in  detail.  To  the  Infinite 
Intelligence,  all  and  each  are  alike  present.  God  does 
not  forget  details  in  generalizations,  nor  lose  generali- 
zations in  details.  As  nothing  is  too  great  for  his 
power,  nothing  is  too  small  for  his  attention.  He 
guides  the  flakes  of  star-dust  slowly  gathering  into 
worlds ;  he  marks  no  less  the  fall  of  the  sparrow,  and 
numbers  the  hairs  of  our  heads.  No  meteor,  no  ani- 
malcule, no  atom  escapes  the  infinite  watchfulness  of 
omniscience,  or  is  forgotten  by  the  all-embracing  wis- 
dom of  providence. 

339 


Providence 

Nor  shall  we  in  our  thought  limit  the  idea  of  provi- 
dence to  events  that  seem  to  us  desirable.  Many  good 
people  attribute  prosperity  to  providence,  adversity  to 
natural  law.  If  they  have  recovered  from  sickness,  the 
recovery  was  providential.  If  their  friends  have  died, 
death  came  by  natural  law.  So  they  attempt  to  draw 
a  line  between  the  things  which  God  does  himself,  and 
the  things  that  occur  in  obedience  to  the  laws  of  na- 
ture ;  or,  as  sometimes  expressed,  the  things  that  God 
purposes,  and  those  that  he  only  permits.  God  does 
not  shirk  the  responsibility  of  the  universe.  There  is 
no  occasion  for  us  to  try  to  prove  an  alibi  for  the  Om- 
nipresent. A  far  nobler  and  truer  faith  was  that  of 
the  Hebrew  prophet  who  declared  in  the  name  of  Je- 
hovah, "I  form  the  light,  and  create  darkness ;  I  make 
peace,  and  create  evil ;  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things."* 
Darkness  and  death  are  as  truly  providential  as  light 
and  life. 

There  is  indeed  one  tremendous  exception  to  the 
scope  of  providence.  If  we  believe  in  free  will,  we 
must  recognize  that  for  our  own  sins  we  are  ourselves 
responsible.  Providence  enters  not  into  the  sacred 
sphere  of  human  personality.  But  our  responsibility 
and  control  are  limited  to  the  subjective  sphere  of  our 
own  volition.  The  objective  results  of  our  actions 
enter  into  the  realm  of  providence,  as  truly  as  do  the 
movements  of  inanimate  nature.  A  reckless  young 
clerk  in  India  became  desperate,  and  twice  put  a  pistol 
to  his  head  and  pulled  the  trigger.     Twice  the  pistol 

*  Isaiah,  xlv,  7. 


Prayer 

missed  fire;  and  Clive  lived  to  found  the  English  em- 
pire in  the  East,  and  to  annex  those  rich  territories  to 
the  domain  of  civilization.  The  guilt  of  suicide  be- 
longed to  the  young  man.  It  was  God's  providence 
that  overruled  the  sinful  purpose,  and  spared  the  life 
for  great  achievement.  No  crime  can  be  consum- 
mated— no  sinful  purpose  can  attain  objective  fulfill- 
ment,— unless  the  result  contributes  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  eternal  plans  of  God.  ''Surely  the  wrath 
of  man  shall  praise  thee :  the  remainder  of  wrath  shalt 
thou  restrain."*  We  are  bound  then  to  recognize  as 
providential  those  experiences  that  come  to  us  as  the 
result  of  the  follies  and  sins  of  others  or  of  ourselves. 
Thus  the  philosophy  of  our  age  of  science  leads  us 
back  to  the  simple  faith  in  God's  presence  and  God's 
immediate  activity  in  all  life's  experiences  that  is  en- 
shrined in  the  Hebrew  traditions  of  the  infancy  of 
the  race.  The  whole  earth  becomes  an  Eden  in  which 
God  walks  and  talks  with  every  soul  that  is  pure 
enough  to  receive  the  manifestation  of  his  presence. 

"We  lack  but  open  eye  and  ear, 
To  find  the  Orient's  marvels  here — 
The  still  small  voice  in  autumn's  hush. 
Yon  maple  wood  the  burning  bush." 

Prayer 

The  consideration  of  the  doctrine  of  providence  leads 
naturally  to  the  consideration  of  prayer;  for,  in  its 
broadest  sense,  prayer  is  simply  the  expression  of  our 

*  Psalm  Ixxvi,  lo. 

341 


Prayer 

faith  in  providence.  Prayer,  then,  will  be  gross  or  re- 
iined,  rational  or  irrational,  according  to  the  character 
of  our  faith  in  providence.  In  the  grosser  anthropomor- 
phic conceptions  of  God,  he  is  supposed  to  be  imperfect 
in  knowledge,  and  therefore  capable  of  change  of  pur- 
pose. He  may  be  convinced  by  argument  that  the 
things  he  had  intended  to  do  are  lOi  .be  best,  and  may 
be  led  accordingly  to  change  his  plan;  or  he  may  be 
over-persuaded  by  persistent  entreaty.  With  this  low 
conception  of  the  character  of  God  was  associated  a 
correspondingly  low  idea  of  prayer.  Prayer,  in  short, 
was  simply  teasing.  Yet  we  may  easily  think  too  con- 
temptuously of  the  gross  anthropomorphism  of  early 
faith,  and  of  the  superstitious  prayers  in  which  that 
faith  expressed  itself.  "It  were  better,"  said  Lord 
Bacon,  "to  have  no  opinion  of  God  at  all  than  such 
an  opinion  as  is  unworthy  of  him."*  A  monstrous 
falsehood,  for  finite  thought  of  the  Infinite  must  be 
unworthy.  Better — far  better — the  grossest  anthro- 
pomorphism, than  atheism.  Better  the  most  supersti- 
tious prayers  of  those  who  "think  that  they  shall  be 
heard  for  their  much  speaking,"  than  irreligion.  Crude 
and  gross  as  were  those  early  faiths  and  the  prayers 
which  they  prompted,  they  kept  alive  in  the  human 
soul  the  great  truth  of  a  Power  above  man  which  can 
yet  sympathize  with  man. 

But,  important  and  necessary  as  were  these  crude 
ideas  of  prayer  in  the  history  of  religion,  they  could 
not  be  permanent.    The  advance  of  the  human  intellect 

*  Essays^  or  Counsels  Civil  and  Morale  xvii. 


Superstitious  Prayers 

in  general,  and  especially  the  growth  of  scientific  ideas 
of  nature,  brought  their  inevitable  doom.  We  cannot 
believe  to-day  that,  if  God  has  purposed  up  to  a  cer- 
tain moment  to  do  a  particular  thing,  he  will  change 
his  mind  and  decide  to  do  something  else  in  obedience 
to  the  dictation  of  our  prayers.  Such  a  notion  would 
imply  either  that  God's  wisdom  was  so  imperfect  that 
our  prayers  could  convince  him  of  the  desirability  of 
a  change  of  plan,  or  that  his  purpose  was  so  weak  that 
he  could  yield  to  our  simple  importunity.  The  man 
who  believes  that  God  will  change  his  plans  in  obe- 
dience to  his  prayer,  and  still  dares  to  pray,  must  be 
possessed  of  a  sublime  hardihood.  If  I  could  fancy 
that  God  was  willing  to  abdicate  the  throne  of  the  uni- 
verse in  my  behalf,  I  would  not  accept  the  tremendous 
responsibility. 

But  there  is  a  truer  conception  of  prayer  correlated 
with  that  conception  of  providence  which  we  have 
reached  in  our  previous  discussion.  We  have  seen 
that  providence  is  not  afterthought  but  forethought — 
foreseeing,  and  consequent  foreordaining.  Prayer 
and  its  answer  are  provided  for  in  the  eternal  fore- 
knowledge of  God.  From  all  eternity  God  has  fore- 
seen the  life  of  every  human  being;  not  merely  the 
outward  life  as  it  manifests  itself  to  men,  but  in- 
ward spiritual  life  as  revealed  to  him  alone.  From  all 
eternity  God  has  heard  all  words  of  prayer  which  his 
church  has  offered  and  will  offer  to  the  end  of  time. 
He  has  heard  the  unuttered  thoughts  of  prayer  which 
were  audible  to  his  ear  alone.    From  all  eternity  God 

343 


Prayer 

has  known  what  souls  would  be  lifted  up  to  him  in 
filial  trust,  and  what  souls,  forsaking  the  Father  in 
pride  and  unbelief,  would  doom  themselves  to  spiritual 
orphanage.  Knowing  thus  the  spiritual  condition  of 
every  individual  at  every  moment,  God  has  formed 
the  constitution  of  the  universe  so  as  to  bring  to  his 
children  the  blessings  which  he  deemed  fit  to  bestow 
upon  them.  In  this  view,  the  answer  to  prayer  is  not 
an  exceptional  thing ;  it  is  the  very  law  of  the  universe. 
Answers  to  prayer  come  to  us  not  contrary  to  law,  but 
in  harmony  with  law,  and  in  the  very  course  of  the 
operation  of  law. 

In  the  relation  of  prayer  to  the  laws  of  the  moral 
universe,  we  recognize  the  ground  of  the  omnipotence 
of  prayer  in  a  certain  sphere  of  our  life.  For  law  in 
the  moral  universe  is  as  real  as  in  the  physical  uni- 
verse, and  as  real  in  the  same  sense.  The  order  of 
coexistence  and  succession  is  as  constant  in  the  moral 
world  as  in  the  physical  world.  When  we  pray  for 
forgiveness  of  sin,  and  for  the  grace  which  is  needful 
for  victory  over  temptation  and  for  holy  living,  our 
prayer  is  itself,  in  the  eternal  system  of  moral  law, 
the  antecedent  of  which  those  blessings  are  the  conse- 
quent. The  state  of  mind  which  expresses  itself  in 
those  prayers  is  the  necessary  condition  for  our  recep- 
tion of  those  gifts  of  divine  grace.  In  such  prayers  as 
these,  we  are  warranted  in  the  faith  that  the  specific 
thing  asked  for  will  be  granted.  To  doubt  that  such 
prayers  will  be  answered  is  to  doubt  the  faithfulness  of 
God.   Such  prayer,  in  the  beautiful  language  of  Doctor 

344 


Prayer  as  Related  to  Moral  Law 

Bartol,  is  "an  address  to  the  Throne,  moved  by  the 
King  himself."  To  such  prayer  may  be  appHed  without 
Hmitation  the  words  of  Jesus,  "Ask,  and  it  shall  be 
given  you;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find."  By  the  omnipo- 
tent might  of  such  prayer  the  mountain  weight  of 
guilt  is  cast  into  the  ocean  depths  of  divine  forgiveness. 

Outside  of  this  supreme  sphere  of  prayer,  all  peti- 
tions must  be  offered  in  the  spirit  of  submission.  Ex- 
pressly or  by  implication,  the  prayer,  "Thy  will  be 
done,"  must  be  the  accompaniment  of  every  request 
for  specific  gifts.  The  only  faith  which  can  reasonably 
be  exercised  is  a  general  faith  in  the  providential  vv^is- 
dom  and  love  of  God.  "He  that  cometh  to  God,  must 
believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them 
that  diligently  seek  him."* 

An  interesting  question  that  demands  attention  is, 
how  is  the  form  of  prayer  affected  by  the  increasing 
knowledge  of  the  system  of  natural  law?  We  have 
already  seen  that  the  propositions  which  we  formulate 
under  the  name  of  laws  of  nature  are  of  varying  de- 
grees of  probability,  and  that  none  of  them  can  attain 
to  absolute  certainty.  Yet  there  are  many  classes  of 
phenomena  whose  laws  have  been  ascertained  with 
so  near  an  approach  to  certainty  that  we  can  predict 
without  any  consciousness  of  doubt  that  a  certain  event 
will  or  will  not  come  to  pass.  Is  it  possible  for  us  to 
pray  for  an  event  whose  occurrence  or  non-occurrence 
we  can  thus  confidently  predict?  I  believe  that  the 
common  sense  of  the  Christian  Church  practically  con- 

*  Hebrews,  xi,  6. 

345 


Prayer 

fesses  the  impossibility  of  petitions  for  such  events.  I 
do  not  believe  that  any  man  in  this  age  and  nation — 
at  least  any  man  of  sound  mind  and  of  education — 
can  pray  that  the  day  may  be  twenty-five  hours  long, 
that  a  heavy  body  which  is  left  unsupported  may  be 
poised  in  air  above  our  heads,  that  an  amputated  limb 
may  be  replaced  by  a  new  growth,  or  that  a  dead  man 
may  be  recovered  to  life.  Yet  these  events  are  no 
more  truly  governed  by  law  than  are  events  for  which 
most  Christians  are  accustomed  to  pray.  Probably 
most  Christians  pray  at  times  for  changes  of  weather, 
and  all  or  nearly  all  Christians  pray  for  the  recovery 
of  themselves  or  of  their  friends  in  sickness.  Yet 
meteorological  changes  and  disease  and  health  are  as 
truly  law-governed  as  the  phenomena  connected  with 
gravitation.  The  difference  is  simply  that  in  one  class 
of  cases  we  do,  and  in  the  other  class  we  do  not,  have 
such  a  knowledge  of  the  law  as  enables  us  to  predict 
the  event.  The  things  which  we  cannot  predict  we 
can  pray  for.  The  things  which  we  can  predict  we 
cannot  pray  for. 

Thus  we  are  led  to  a  conclusion  which  seems  offen- 
sive to  many  good  people:  namely,  that  the  advance 
of  the  knowledge  of  nature  narrows  the  sphere  of 
prayer.  That  the  advance  of  knowledge  in  the  past 
has  narrowed  the  sphere  of  prayer,  in  the  sense  of 
specific  petition,  is  simply  a  matter  of  history.  There 
was  a  time  when,  in  the  gathering  darkness  of  an 
eclipse,  men  could  pray  that  the  shadow  might  dis- 
appear, and  the  blessed  sunlight  be  given  to  them 

346 


Prayer  as  Related  to  Physical  Law 

again.  We  cannot  offer  such  prayers  now,  for  we 
feel  sure  that  the  prayers  of  the  whole  church  mili- 
tant would  not  shorten  the  duration  of  an  eclipse  a 
thousandth  part  of  a  second.  Our  children's  children 
will  probably  be  as  incapable  of  praying  for  sunshine 
and  rain  as  we  are  of  praying  that  an  eclipse  may  be 
arrested. 

Yet  there  is  a  broader,  higher  view  of  prayer,  in 
which  it  is  seen  that  the  sphere  of  prayer  can  never 
be  narrowed  by  our  advance  in  knowledge.  Prayer 
is  not  merely  specific  petition.  Prayer,  in  its  broader 
and  higher  sense,  is  the  communion  of  the  human  soul 
with  God.  It  is  the  response  of  filial  love  and  trust 
to  the  truth  of  God's  fatherly  providence.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Jesus  warns  us  against  a 
low,  heathenish  conception  of  prayer — the  notion  that 
prayer  is  essentially  teasing,  and  that  men  are  to  "be 
heard  for  their  much  speaking."  He  warns  us  against 
the  idea  that  we  are  giving  information  to  God,  or 
reminding  him  of  things  which  he  is  in  danger  of 
forgetting: — "Your  Father  knoweth  what  things  ye 
have  need  of  before  ye  ask  him."  Thus  he  seeks  to 
lead  us  away  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  idea  of 
prayer;  from  teasing  to  trusting;  from  petty,  selfish 
petition  to  loving  communion  with  him  who  is  infinite 
in  wisdom  and  love.  Then  he  gives  us  a  form  of 
prayer.  How  strongly  that  prayer  contrasts  with  those 
we  often  offer!  How  little  of  self,  how  little  of  spe- 
cific petition,  how  little  of  telling  God  what  we  think 
we  want,  how  much  of  loyal  submission  and  filial 

347 


Prayer 

trust!  ^'Hallowed  be  thy  name.  Thy  kingdom  come. 
Thy  will  be  done  in  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven."  And 
the  prayer  is  half  done  before  the  thought  of  self 
has  entered.  Then  the  whole  range  of  temporal  in- 
terests is  disposed  of  in  the  single  petition,  "Give  us 
this  day  our  daily  bread" — -a  petition  expressive  rather 
of  faith  in  God's  providing,  than  of  a  disposition  to 
direct  that  providing  according  to  our  own  notions. 
According  to  the  narrative  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  our 
Saviour  prayed  in  Gethsemane,  'Tf  it  be  possible,  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me:  nevertheless,  not  as  I  will, 
but  as  thou  wilt."  And  again  he  prayed,  "O  my 
Father!  if  this  cup  may  not  pass  away  from  me,  except 
I  drink  it,  thy  will  be  done."  Was  the  latter  prayer 
less  truly  a  prayer  than  the  former?  Was  it  not  the 
nobler  prayer,  revealing,  as  it  did,  that  the  weakness 
of  the  flesh  was  conquered,  and  the  momentary  vacilla- 
tion of  purpose  was  ended?  "He  spake  a  parable," 
we  are  told,  "to  this  end,  that  men  ought  always  to 
pray  and  not  to  faint."*  This  precept,  "always  to 
pray  and  not  to  faint,"  or  that  of  Paul,  to  "pray  with- 
out ceasing,"f  certainly  does  not  mean  the  perpetual 
dinning  of  specific  petitions  into  the  ear  of  God :  it 
means,  rather,  a  spirit  of  filial  trust  and  abiding  com- 
munion with  God.  Prayer  is  thus  conceived  as  being 
not  so  much  a  specific  act  as  an  habitual  state  of 
mind — a  continuous  recognition  of  God  in  all  the  ex- 
periences and  in  all  the  activities  of  life.  He  who 
makes  some  near  approach  to  this  ideal  of  prayer, 

*Luke,  xviii,  i.  t  I  Thess.,  v,  17. 

348 


Pray  without  Ceasing 

will  have  no  occasion  to  lament  the  limitation  of  the 
sphere  of  prayer,  in  that  he  can  no  longer  ask  for 
some  specific  things  for  which  he  or  his  ancestors 
might  once  have  prayed.  For  him  the  sphere  of 
prayer  will  be  coextensive  with  human  life,  and  the 
sphere  of  answer  to  prayer  will  be  coextensive  with 
the  physical  and  moral  universe.  He  can  sing  most 
truly, 

"In  every  joy  that  crowns  my  days, 
In  every   pain   I   bear, 

My  heart  shall  find  delight  in  praise, 
Or  seek  relief  in  prayer." 

And  for  him,  all  things  will  "work  together  for  good."* 
He  will  ''be  in  league  with  the  stones  of  the  field ;  and 
the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  be  at  peace  with"  him.f 
"The  stars  in  their  courses"  will  fight  against  his  foes. 
Amid  all  the  vicissitudes  of  temporal  prosperity  and 
adversity,  his  serene  and  triumphant  faith  may  express 
itself  in  the  words  of  the  Psalmist: — "The  Lord  is 
my  shepherd ;  I  shall  not  want.  He  maketh  me  to  lie 
down  in  green  pastures :  he  leadeth  me  beside  the 
still  waters.    He  restoreth  my  soul." 

In  the  future  as  in  the  past,  advancing  knowledge 
and  deepening  experience  must  change  the  form  of 
prayer;  but,  in  every  stage  of  intellectual  and  moral 
development,  that  form  of  prayer  is  most  fitting 
which  is  most  natural  and  spontaneous.  The  value 
of  prayer  lies  not  in  the  consistency  of  its  language 
with  a  high  type  of  theistic  philosophy,  but  in   the 

*  Romans,  viii,  28.  t  Job,  v,  23. 

349 


Prayer 

genuineness  of  its  expression  of  filial  trust  in  a 
Father's   love. 

"The  child  that  cries  for  soaring  bird, 

For  moon  or  radiant  star, 
Is  not  rebuked  with  angry  word, 

Though  vain  its  longings  are. 
If  God  is  God,  and  God  is  love, 

And  we  his  children  are, 
He  will  not  frown  from  heaven  above, 

Though  e'en  we  ask  a  star." 

Yes,  let  us  ask  for  stars  if  we  think  we  want  them.  We 
shall  not  get  them,  but  we  shall  get  what  is  better 
than  stars.  Poor  babies  as  we  are  in  our  weakness 
and  ignorance,  we  may  still  be  the  children  of  God, 
and  may  be  blessed  in  his  fatherly  love.  The  child- 
hood of  the  individual  and  of  the  race,  the  childhood 
of  intellectual  and  of  spiritual  life,  will  ^'besiege  the 
throne  of  grace"  with  specific  petitions  for  all  sorts 
of  absurd  and  impossible  things.  But,  as  knowledge 
grows  from  more  to  more,  and  more  of  reverence  in 
us  dwells,  our  prayers  will  more  and  more  conform 
to  the  precept  of  the  Master,  "After  this  manner, 
therefore,  pray  ye:  *Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven, 
hallowed  be  thy  name.  Thy  kingdom  come.  Thy 
will  be  done  in  earth,  as  it  is  in  heaven.'  "  "After 
this  manner" — not  necessarily  in  these  words  (though 
the  words  may  be  fit  to  be  the  perpetual  liturgy  of 
the  Church  Universal),  but  rather  in  this  spirit  of  trust 
and  submission  in  the  presence  of  infinite  wisdom  and 
perfect  love.     "Thy  will  be  done,"  sounds  now  as  a 

350 


Miracle 

faint,  sweet  accompaniment,  almost  drowned  in  the 
vociferousness  of  desire.    Swelling  into  organ  fullness, 

"Loud  as  many  waters'  noise, 
Sweet  as   harp's   melodious  voice," 

drowning  into  silence  the  tumult  of  selfish  passion,  it 
becomes  the  eternal  music  of  heaven. 

Miracle 

The  Christian  religion  claims  to  be  authenticated 
by  miracles.  But  there  is  one  miracle  which  stands 
in  a  very  different  relation  to  Christian  faith  from 
any  other  miracle,  and  which  may  well  claim  special 
consideration. 

Other  miracles  served  to  authenticate  a  revelation. 
The  resurrection  of  Jesus  was  itself  an  integral  part 
of  that  revelation.  There  might  have  been  more  or 
fewer  of  those  other  miracles,  and  our  general  con- 
ception of  the  character  and  work  of  Jesus  would  have 
been  still  the  same.  If  he  had  fed  the  multitudes  with 
a  few  loaves  once  instead  of  twice,  if  he  had  raised  a 
dead  person  to  life  once  or  twice  instead  of  thrice,  if 
any  one  or  if  some  considerable  number  of  the  mir- 
acles recorded  in  the  gospels  had  been  left  unrecorded, 
or  if  the  record  of  some  of  them  should  be  discredited 
as  unauthentic,  it  would  make  no  essential  difference 
in  our  conception  of  the  character  and  work  of  Jesus, 
or  in  the  general  system  of  Christian  doctrine.  But, 
if  the  record  of  the  resurrection  were  lost  or  discred- 
ited, our  whole  conception  of  Christ  and  of  Chris- 

351 


Miracle 

tianity  would  be  radically  changed.  Something,  in- 
deed, of  the  work  of  Jesus  would  be  left  if  the  world 
should  lose  its  faith  in  his  resurrection. 

"In  the  wreck  of  noble  lives, 
Something  immortal  still  survives." 

Whatever  changes  there  may  be  in  men's  opinions  of 
Christ  and  Christianity,  human  life  will  always  be 
better  for  the  ethical  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount;  human  character  will  always  be  nobler  for 
the  example  of  sublime  self-sacrifice  on  Calvary.  But 
the  residue  which  would  be  left  if  the  world  should 
lose  its  faith  in  the  resurrection  would  not  be  historic 
Christianity.  It  was  "Jesus  and  the  resurrection"  that 
Paul  preached  at  Athens.  The  resurrection  was  the 
corner-stone  on  which  the  faith  of  the  primitive  Church 
was  built.  Whatever  might  remain  if  the  resurrec- 
tion should  cease  to  be  believed,  it  would  not  be  Chris- 
tianity. It  would  not  be  the  faith  that  has  made 
martyrs  and  missionaries — the  faith  that  has  trans- 
formed the  world's  history. 

The  resurrection  of  Jesus  may  well  claim  special 
consideration,  not  only  because  it  is  the  most  impor- 
tant, but  also  because  it  is  the  best  attested,  of  all  mira- 
cles. Indeed,  so  greatly  does  the  evidence  of  the  resur- 
rection exceed  that  of  every  other  alleged  miracle,  that 
our  chief  reason  for  believing  in  any  other  miracle  as 
historic,  is  that  the  strong  evidence  for  the  resurrec- 
tion suffices  to  establish  a  probability  that  miracle  is 
a  part  of  the  divine  plan  of  revelation.    In  the  thought 

352 


Difficulty  of  Belief  in  Miracle 

of  to-day,  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  other  miracle  is 
so  strongly  attested  that  it  would  be  credible  if  it  stood 
alone.  The  question  of  the  credibility  of  miracle  re- 
solves itself  into  the  question  of  the  credibility  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus. 

The  fact  cannot  be  overlooked  that  the  question  of 
the  credibility  of  miracle  is  profoundly  affected  by 
that  change  of  intellectual  atmosphere  which  has  taken 
place  since  the  first  century,  and  which  was  considered 
in  the  introductory  chapter  of  this  work.  Then  prodi- 
gies were  readily  believed  on  the  slightest  occasion 
and  with  the  most  meager  evidence.  The  growth  of 
science;  the  discovery  of  a  vast  body  of  laws  of  na- 
ture— generalizations  of  experience — supported  by  a 
wealth  of  induction  which  raises  probability  almost  to 
certainty;  the  strengthening  conviction  of  the  univer- 
sal reign  of  law  in  nature; — disincline  men  to  yield 
credence  to  an  allegation  so  remote  from  ordinary  ex- 
perience as  that  of  a  resurrection  from  the  dead.  Ap- 
parently in  utter  unconsciousness  of  the  difficulties 
which  the  spirit  of  this  age  finds  in  the  way  of  belief 
in  a  miraculous  event,  many  of  the  teachers  of  Chris- 
tian evidences  simply  point  to  the  presumably  honest 
contemporary  testimony  to  the  fact  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  confidently  declare  that  no  fact  in  ancient 
history  is  so  well  attested.  It  is  doubtless  true  that 
the  weight  of  testimony  which  can  be  marshaled  in 
behalf  of  the  resurrection  is  greater  than  that  on  the 
strength  of  which  most  facts  of  ancient  history  are 
believed:    but  the  truth  of  that  proposition  is  by  no 

353 


Miracle 

means  sufficient  to  establish  the  credibiHty  of  the 
resurrection.  We  can  no  more  judge  of  the  adequacy 
of  testimony  to  estabhsh  behef  in  any  particular 
allegation,  without  regard  to  the  character  of  the  alle- 
gation, than  we  can  decide  whether  a  bridge  is  suffi- 
ciently strong,  without  considering  whether  it  is  to 
bear  foot  passengers  or  railway  trains. 

It  is  indeed  unnecessary  to  spend  time  in  proving 
that  a  miracle  is  possible.  From  the  discussion  which 
has  been  already -given  of  the  meaning  of  natural  law, 
it  appears  that  every  so-called  law  of  nature  is  a  gener- 
alization based  upon  limited  experience  and  incomplete 
knowledge;  that  the  probability  of  such  generaliza- 
tions varies  greatly  in  degree,  but  can  never  attain 
the  standard  of  certainty ;  that  those  laws  which  seem 
most  strongly  supported  may  prove  to  be  true  only 
approximately  or  within  limits;  that  there  must  ever 
remain  a  possibility  of  the  discovery  of  an  isolated  fact 
contradicting  the  supposed  law  of  nature,  and  showing 
that  the  true  law  is  more  complex  than  had  been  sup- 
posed. That  the  sun  will  rise  to-morrow  at  the  time 
predicted  by  astronomers,  is  extremely  probable,  but 
not  certain.  It  may  fail  to  rise.  So  long  as  human 
knowledge  falls  short  of  omniscience,  we  cannot  be 
warranted  in  pronouncing  impossible  a  priori  any  alle- 
gation which  involves  no  self-contradiction.  As  Hume 
has  well  said,*  "Whatever  is  intelligible  and  can  be 
distinctly  conceived,  implies  no  contradiction,  and  can 

*  An  Enquiry  concerning  Human  Understanding,  section  4 ;  Sceptical 
Doubts  concerning  the  Operations  of  the  Understanding.  Essays,  Green 
and  Grose's  edition,  vol.  ii,  p.  31. 

354 


HuME^s  Argument 

never  be  proved  false  by  any  demonstrative  argument, 
or  abstract  reasoning  a  priori."  At  other  times,  un- 
fortunately, Hume  used  language  inconsistent  with 
this  clear  and  sound  statement. 

But  the  possibility  of  miracle  is  one  thing ;  the  prob- 
ability of  miracle  is  a  very  different  thing.  While  no 
one  of  those  generalizations  of  our  experience  which 
we  call  provisionally  natural  laws  can  reach  the  stand- 
ard of  certainty,  there  are  many  of  them  which  attain 
an  extremely  high  degree  of  probability.  Some  of 
these  generalizations  rest  on  a  collection  of  observa- 
tions so  immense  and  so  thoroughly  analyzed  that  the 
occurrence  of  a  new  fact  which  will  contradict  the 
generalization,  though  not  absolutely  impossible,  is 
enormously  improbable.  Here  we  reach  the  ground  of 
Hume's  famous  argument  against  the  credibility  of 
miracles.  Hume's  position  is  substantially  that  a  mir- 
acle is  a  priori  so  enormously  improbable  that  the 
falsity  of  any  supposable  amount  of  human  testimony 
is  more  probable  than  the  truth  of  the  alleged  miracle. 
The  sophistical  form  in  which  Hume  stated  his  argu- 
ment has  been  justly  criticized,  and  criticized  by  the 
agnostic  Huxley,*  as  well  as  by  Christian  writers;  but 
the  force  of  the  argument  depends,  not  on  the  sophis- 
tical form,  but  on  the  truth  which  it  contains.  That 
truth  is,  that  the  amount  and  quality  of  testimony  nec- 
essary to  establish  belief  in  any  allegation  vary  with 
the  a  priori  probability  or  improbability  of  the  allega- 
tion, and  that  accordingly  there  may  be  allegations  so 

*  David  Hume,  part  ii,  ch,  vii. 

355 


Miracle 

enormously  improbable  that  no  supposable  array  of 
testimony  would  render  them  credible. 

Of  this  principle,  Huxley  has  given  a  striking  illus- 
tration.* *'If  a  man  tells  me  he  saw  a  piebald  horse 
in  Piccadilly,  I  believe  him  without  hesitation.  The 
thing  itself  is  likely  enough,  and  there  is  no  imag- 
inable motive  for  his  deceiving  me.  But  if  the  same 
person  tells  me  he  observed  a  zebra  there,  I  might 
hesitate  a  little  about  accepting  his  testimony,  unless 
I  were  well  satisfied,  not  only  as  to  his  previous  ac- 
quaintance with  zebras,  but  as  to  his  powers  and  oppor- 
tunities of  observation  in  the  present  case.  If,  how- 
ever, my  informant  assured  me  that  he  beheld  a  centaur 
trotting  down  that  famous  thoroughfare,  I  should 
emphatically  decline  to  credit  his  statement;  and  this 
even  if  he  were  the  most  saintly  of  men  and  ready 
to  suffer  martyrdom  in  support  of  his  belief."  Huxley 
goes  on  to  say  expressly,  ''This  hesitation  about  admit- 
ting the  existence  of  such  an  animal  as  a  centaur" 
"need  not  imply,  and  it  does  not,  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned,^ any  a  priori  hypothesis  that  a  centaur  is  an 
impossible  animal ;  or  that  his  existence,  if  he  did  exist, 
would  violate  the  laws  of  nature.  Indubitably,  the  or- 
ganization of  a  centaur  presents  a  variety  of  practical 
difficulties  to  an  anatomist  and  physiologist;  and  a 
good  many  of  those  generalizations  of  our  present  ex- 
perience which  we  are  pleased  to  call  laws  of  nature, 
would  be  upset  by  the  appearance  of  such  an  animal, 
so  that  we  should  have  to  frame  new  laws  to  cover 

*  David  Hume,  p.  132. 


Huxley's  Illustration  of  the  Centaur 

our  extended  experience.  Every  wise  man  will  admit 
that  the  possibilities  of  nature  are  infinite,  and  include 
centaurs." 

Suppose  all  Roman  historians  for  a  century  after 
the  death  of  Nero  agreed  in  the  assertion  that  Nero 
rose  from  the  dead.  Would  such  agreement  establish 
in  our  minds  a  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  allegation? 
I  answer,  without  hesitation,  "No."  I  believe  that 
the  majority  of  well-educated  people  would  not  even 
be  brought  to  the  point  of  seriously  questioning 
whether  the  allegation  might  not  be  true.  The  sup- 
position of  error  in  all  the  historians  of  the  period, 
arising  from  some  mistake  or  fraud  on  the  part  of 
those  who  first  gave  currency  to  the  story,  would  seem 
immensely  more  probable  than  the  supposition  of  the 
truth  of  the  allegation. 

Why  should  we  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
on  the  evidence  of  testimony,  when  we  can  hardly  con- 
ceive of  any  array  of  testimony  which  would  convince 
us  of  the  resurrection  of  Nero?  The  answer  to  this 
question  may  be  given  in  two  different  forms. 

I.  In  so  far  as  the  character  of  Jesus  is  unique  and 
apparently  superhuman,  the  a  priori  probability  against 
the  resurrection  is  diminished.  If  it  is  conceded  that 
in  various  respects  Jesus  differs  from  all  other  men, 
it  is  thereby  rendered  more  or  less  probable  that  he 
may  differ  from  all  other  men  in  other  respects.  It 
is  certainly  true  that  the  character  of  Jesus  is  unique. 
He  seems  to  stand  apart  from  mere  men,  like  some 
mysterious  visitor  from  a  higher  sphere.    "Never  man 

357 


Miracle 

spake  like  this  man."  He  bids  the  world,  "Take  my 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me;  for  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart :  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls." 
What  other  lips  could  thus  have  put  into  a  single  sen- 
tence the  profession  of  humility  and  the  claim  to  su- 
premacy over  mankind  without  producing  an  impres- 
sion of  grotescjue  incongruity?  On  the  lips  of  Jesus 
the  two  utterances  blend  in  sweet  and  solemn  harmony. 
Behold  him  in  the  days  of  the  passion  week  and  in 
the  threefold  trial  on  the  morning  of  the  crucifixion. 
How,  with  each  accession  of  humiliation,  he  reveals 
more  fully  a  serene  and  superhuman  majesty!  The 
lower  he  stoops,  the  higher  he  rises. 

With  whom  among  the  sons  of  men  shall  we  com- 
pare him  ?  Shall  it  be  with  the  saints  of  the  Christian 
Church?  The  holiest  of  them  loves  best  to  confess 
that  he  only  reflects  some  portion  of  the  glory  of  Jesus, 
as  the  planets  reflect  the  splendor  of  the  sun.  Shall 
we  compare  him  with  other  founders  of  religions? 
Read  the  story  of  Buddha,  as  told  so  lovingly — too 
lovingly,  perhaps,  for  strict  and  critical  fidelity  to 
truth — in  Sir  Edwin  Arnold's  ''Light  of  Asia."  Read 
the  beautiful  story  with  loving  sympathy,  and  thank 
God  that  ''he  left  not  himself  without  witness"  among 
the  teeming  millions  of  the  Orient,  but  raised  up  for 
them  a  teacher  of  righteousness.  "But  the  glory  of 
the  celestial  is  one,  and  the  glory  of  the  terrestrial  is 
another."  "The  Light  of  Asia"  pales  before  "the 
Light  of  the  World."  Try  to  patch  into  one  of  the 
Gospels  the  story  .of  Buddha  stealing  out  from  his 

358 


The  Character  of  Jesus 

sumptuous  palace,  past  the  lovely  sleeping  forms  of 
his  troop  of  nautch  girls,  when  the  wail  of  human  sor- 
row calls  him  forth  to  his  great  mission — try  to  patch 
into  one  of  the  Gospels  that  story,  as  told  so  sweetly 
in  Arnold's  poem,  or,  still  worse,  as  told  more  repul- 
sively in  the  Indian  original,* — and  how  wildly  incon- 
gruous it  would  be!  x\mong  earth's  saints  and  sages 
there  is  no  peer  for  the  Man  of  Nazareth.  It  is  not 
incredible  that  he  who  was  superhuman  in  life  should 
have  been  superhuman  in  death. 

11.  For  an  atheist,  or  for  an  agnostic  whose  type  of 
agnosticism  is  practical  atheism,  assuming  that  there 
is  no  moral  purpose  in  the  government  of  the  world, 
there  can  be  no  meaning  in  a  miracle,  and  such  an 
extraordinary  event  is  as  improbable  at  one  time  as 
at  another.  That  indeed  is  exactly  the  assumption 
of  Huxley  in  his  illustration  of  the  centaur  already 
quoted. f  If  there  was  a  centaur  in  the  streets  of  Lon- 
don, he  was  there  for  no  moral  purpose.  He  was  an 
isolated  and  meaningless  wonder.  But  to  him  who 
believes,  or  even  hopes,  that  the  world  is  ruled  by  a 
God  of  moral  attributes,  it  must  appear  more  or  less 
probable  that  such  a  God  may  choose  to  reveal  him- 
self to  his  children,  and  may  make  the  system  of  nature 
itself  emphasize  and  attest  that  revelation.  In  pro- 
portion to  the  importance  of  the  revelation  which  is 
to  be  made  is  the  probability  of  some  miraculous  sign 

*  Life  of  Buddha,  by  Asvaj2:hosha  Bodhisattva,  translated  by  Beal  (Miiller, 
Sacred  Books  of  the  Easf,  vol.  xix),  p.  54. 

+  Fisher,  The  Grounds  of  Theistic  and  Christian  Belief  revised  edition, 
p.  171. 

359 


Miracle 

for  its  attestation.  If  the  Power  that  rules  the  world 
is  "a  power  which  makes  for  righteousness,"  it  can- 
not seem  incredible  or  extremely  improbable  that  the 
world's  clock  should  have  been  so  adjusted  as  to  strike 
at  an  hour  pregnant  with  moral  destiny.  When  we 
consider  that,  but  for  the  faith  in  the  resurrection, 
Christianity  would  have  been  buried  forever  in  the 
rock-hewn  tomb  in  which  the  Master  lay,  and  when 
we  try  to  measure  what  Christianity,  with  its  revela- 
tion of  divine  fatherhood,  and  human  brotherhood,  and 
redemption  from  sin,  and  life  immortal,  has  been  to 
mankind  in  these  centuries  of  Christendom  and  Chris- 
tian civilization,  and  what  it  promises  to  be  in  the 
glory  of  a  millennial  future,  we  cannot  deem  it  ''a 
thing  incredible"  that,  in  that  transcendent  crisis  of 
man's  moral  history,  *'God  should  raise  the  dead."  The 
thought  of  this  paragraph  may  be  summed  up  in  a 
striking  sentence  from  Romanes'  ^'Thoughts  on  Re- 
ligion" : — ^'The  antecedent  improbability  against  a 
miracle  being  wrought  by  a  man  without  a  moral  ob- 
ject is  apt  to  be  confused  with  that  of  its  being  done 
by  God  with  an  adequate  moral  object.  The  former 
is  immeasurably  great ;  the  latter  is  only  equal  to  that 
of  the  theory  of  theism,  i.  e.,  nil."'^ 

By  such  considerations  as  these  the  a  priori  improb- 
ability of  a  resurrection  is  so  far  neutralized  that  we 
are  in  a  posture  of  mind  to  consider  the  testimony 
which  can  be  cited  in  favor  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
The  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  not,  as  the  resurrection  of 

*  0/>.  cit.^  p.  191. 
360 


Early  Dates  of  New  Testament  Documents 

Nero  would  be,  an  event  so  enormously  improbable 
that  scarcely  any  supposable  testimony  would  suffice 
to  render  it  credible. 

The  historic  record  of  the  resurrection  is  contained 
in  six  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament — the  four 
Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians.  The  last  of  these  has  a  peculiar 
importance,  as  being  both  the  earliest  in  date  and  the 
most  unquestionable  in  authenticity.  Skepticism  itself 
does  not  doubt  that  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians 
was  written  by  the  apostle  Paul,  and  at  a  date  not 
more  than  about  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  the  death 
of  Christ — at  a  time,  therefore,  when  the  greater  part 
of  the  more  than  five  hundred  brethren  who  claimed 
to  have  beheld  the  risen  Lord  were  still  living.  The 
summary  of  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  to  the 
apostles,  as  contained  in  that  epistle,  is  therefore  con- 
clusive evidence  that  the  faith  in  the  resurrection  was 
the  faith  of  the  first  generation  of  Christians.  It  was 
not  a  myth  that  grew  up  slowly,  when  the  original 
witnesses  of  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus  had  passed 
away,  and  the  simple  tradition  which  they  left  had  come 
to  be  embellished  by  the  imaginative  additions  of  later 
generations.  It  was  the  faith  of  the  disciples  who 
were  contemporary  with  Jesus.  It  must  be  freely  con- 
ceded that  there  is  not  the  same  degree  of  certainty  in 
regard  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the  Gospels  and 
the  Acts  as  in  regard  to  those  of  the  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  Yet  I  believe  it  probable  that  the 
three  Synoptical  Gospels  existed  in  substantially  their 

361 

Of-  The 


.     _         or  / 


Miracle 

present  shape  before  the  year  70  of  the  Christian  era, 
and  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  the  authentic  work  of 
John,  written  in  his  old  age,  toward  the  close  of  the 
first  century.  It  is  worth  noting  that  even  those  crit- 
ics who  reject  the  traditional  views  in  regard  to  the 
date  and  authorship  of  the  Gospels,  for  the  most  part 
hold  no  longer  to  the  extremely  late  dates  assumed  by 
many  critics  a  few  decades  ago.  It  would  be  some- 
what generally  conceded  at  the  present  time  that  all 
four  of  the  Gospels  are  virtually,  if  not  exactly,  con- 
temporary records  of  the  life  and  .teaching  of  Jesus. 

We  have,  then,  probably  six  contemporary  docu- 
ments, written  by  five  different  writers,  all  belonging 
to  the  circle  of  the. apostles  and  their  immediate  asso- 
ciates. The  evidence  of  these  records  is  in  no  wise 
weakened  by  the  discrepancies  between  them.  They 
are  just  such  discrepancies  as  always  exist  between  a 
number  of  honest  but  incomplete  narratives  of  a  series 
of  transactions.  To  cavil  at  them  is  as  malicious  as 
it  is  foolish  to  attempt  to  harmonize  them.  The  sub- 
stantially historic  character  of  the  narratives  and  their 
trustworthiness  as  regards  the  main  facts  may  be  rea- 
sonably maintained,  even  if  it  be  conceded  that  there 
is  ground  for  the  suspicion  that  some  details  of  the 
story  (as,  for  instance,  the  angelic  apparitions)*  may 


*  Furness  has  sug:g;ested,  not  without  plausibility,  that  the  "young  man 
sitting  on  the  right  side,  clothed  in  a  long  white  garment"  (Mark,  xvi,  5),  may 
have  been  no  other  than  Jesus  himself,  indistinctly  seen  in  the  dimly  lighted 
sepulcher,  by  the  women,  who  as  yet  had  no  thought  of  the  possibility  of  a 
resurrection.  The  Power  of  Spirit  Manifest  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  p.  68.  It 
is  a  noteworthy  fact,  whatever  its  significance  may  be,  that  Peter  and  John 
saw  no  angels  at  the  sepulcher. 


36: 


Honesty  of  the  Evangelists 

be  unhistoric — the  result  either  of  some  mistake  or 
confusion  on  the  part  of  the  original  witnesses  or  of' 
some  early  corruption  of  the  tradition. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  comment  on  the  air  of  perfect 
simplicity  and  guilelessness  pervading  the  gospels.  A 
candid  reader  is  continually  impressed  with  the  con- 
viction that  the  writers  of  those  books  fully  believed 
what  they  wrote.  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  probably  the 
only  record  by  an  eye-witness  of  the  events  connected 
with  the  resurrection,  since  the  First  Gospel,  in  its 
present  form,  is  pretty  certainly  not  the  work  of  an 
apostle,  though  it  very  probably  contains  much  mate- 
rial of  which  Matthew  was  actually  the  writer.  In 
John's  narrative  we  meet  in  richest  abundance  those 
little  particulars  which  impress  themselves  upon  the 
memory  of  an  eye-witness,  but  which  tend  to  lose  their 
distinctness  as  a  story  is  repeated  by  other  persons.  In 
the  narrative  of  the  visit  of  Peter  and  John  to  the 
tomb,  we  have  such  particulars  as  John's  outrunning 
Peter,  looking  first  into  the  open  sepulcher,  and  seeing 
the  linen  clothes;  his  timid  or  reverent  hesitation  to 
enter;  Peter's  impetuous  rush  into  the  sepulcher,  fol- 
lowed by  John;  the  napkin  that  had  covered  the 
head  of  Jesus,  "not  lying  with  the  linen  clothes, 
but  wrapped  together  in  a  place  by  itself."  There 
is  an  air  of  photographic  fidelity  rather  than  of 
artistic  selection  of  details.  The  very  form  of  the 
narrative  makes  an  almost  irresistible  impression  that 
John  is  describing  that  which  he  has  actually 
seen   and   experienced.     The   art   of  a   Defoe   would 

363 


Miracle 

scarcely    suffice    so    perfectly    to    ''forge    the    hand- 
writing of  nature." 

The  obvious  honesty  of  all  the  narratives,  and  the 
circumstantial  detail  which  marks  John's  Gospel  as 
the  work  of  an  eye-witness,  scarcely  leave  room  for 
doubt  that  the  sepulcher  of  Jesus  was  found  unten- 
anted on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  In 
some  way  the  body  of  Jesus  had  been  removed.  That 
fact,  of  itself,  is  of  no  miraculous  character ;  and  there 
is  no  reason,  therefore,  why,  so  far  as  that  fact  goes, 
the  Gospel  narratives  should  not  be  recognized  as  hav- 
ing the  same  degree  of  trustworthiness  which  belongs 
to  other  apparently  honest  narratives  of  unexpected, 
but  not  miraculous,  events.  The  absence  of  a  human 
body  from  the  place  in  which  it  had  been  laid  was  a 
phenomenon  which  the  disciples  were  certainly  com- 
petent to  observe.  Assuming  it  to  be  substantially  cer- 
tain that  the  sepulcher  was  found  empty  on  the  Easter 
morning,  we  may  remark  that  the  faith  in  the  resur- 
rection derives  some  incidental  confirmation  from  the 
impossibility  of  constructing  any  plausible  hypothesis 
of  the  abduction  of  the  body.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  O 
any  motive  which  could  have  induced  either  friends  or  " 
enemies  of  Jesus  to  attempt  the  removal  and  conceal- 
ment of  the  body,  even  had  there  been  no  serious  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  the  accomplishment  of  such  a 
design.  This  consideration  derives  some  additional 
importance  from  the  fact  that,  within  a  few  weeks 
after  the  alleged  event,  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  was 
publicly  proclaimed,  and  believed  by  multitudes,  in  Je- 

364 


Institution  of  the  Lord's  Day     ' 

rusalem — the  very  place  where,  if  anywhere,  evidence 
of  the  fact  might  have  been  forthcoming,  if  the  body 
had  been  stolen  from  the  grave. 

I  have  referred  to  the  unquestionably  early  date  of 
the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  as  being  important 
in  proving  that  the  faith  in  the  resurrection  was  not 
slowly  developed  after  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  had 
passed  away.  That  date  is,  however,  by  no  means  the 
earliest  period  to  which  we  can  trace  back  the  belief  in 
the  resurrection.  There  are  indications  that,  by  an 
apparently  spontaneous  and  instinctive  movement,  the 
celebration  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  or  the  Lord's 
Day,  as  a  distinctively  Christian  festival,  was  estab- 
lished at  a  very  early  period  in  the  apostolic  age.  The 
common  notion  that  the  Lord's  Day  was  a  modification 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  or  that  the  date  of  the  Sabbath 
was  changed,  is  entirely  mistaken.  The  very  phrase 
now  so  frecjuent,  "Christian  Sabbath,"  is  not  known 
to  have  been  used  by  any  writer  before  the  twelfth 
century.*  Li  the  early  church  the  two  institutions  were 
never  confounded.  Jewish  Christians  for  a  time  ob- 
served both  days.  The  tendency  of  some  Gentile 
Christians  to  observe  the  Sabbath  was  explicitly  re- 
buked by  Saint  Paul,f  as  a  symptom  of  a  lapse  into 
Judaism.  The  Lord's  Day  was  absolutely  a  new  in- 
stitution. It  was  a  joyous  commemoration  of  that  day 
which  the  Christian  consciousness  recognized  as  the 
birthday  of  the  church.     The  institution  of  the  Lord's 

*  Hessey,  Sunday  {Bampion  Lectures,  i860),  p.  90. 
t  Gal.,  iv,  10;  Col.,  ii,  16. 


Miracle 

Day  is,  therefore,  a  most  eloquent  witness  to  the  faith 
of  the  first  generation  of  Christians  in  the  resurrection. 

But  we  need  not  depend  on  any  document  or  insti- 
tution to  show  that  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  goes 
back  to  the  beginning  of  the  history  of  the  church. 
The  very  existence  of  the  church  is  an  unimpeachable 
testimony  to  the  same  effect.  But  for  the  faith  in  the 
resurrection,  the  church  would  have  died  with  its  Mas- 
ter and  been  buried  in  his  tomb.  "We  trusted,"  said 
the  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus,  "that  it  had  been 
he  which  should  have  redeemed  Israel."  But  that  trust 
was  in  the  past  tense.  The  death  and  burial  of  Jesus 
utterly  destroyed  the  crude  and  unintelligent  faith  in 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  which  the  disciples  had  cher- 
ished, and  they  had  nothing  to  take  its  place.  They 
were  utterly  disheartened;  and,  in  the  loss  of  their 
Master,  the  bond  was  broken  which  bound  th'em  to 
each  other.  What  was  it  that  transformed  these  heart- 
broken, aimless  men,  with  no  common  interest  but  the 
memory  of  a  dead  hope,  into  a  firmly  united,  cour- 
ageous band,  ready  to  attempt  at  once  the  conquest  of 
the  world?  It  was  the  faith  in  the  resurrection  that 
wrought  that  transformation.  The  church  itself  is  the 
monument  of  the  event  which  produced  that  faith,  and 
thereby  gave  the  initiative  to  the  course  of  Christian 
history. 

But  what  was  that  event  ?  If  Jesus  did  actually  rise 
from  the  dead,  and  appear  unto  Cephas  and  the  twelve 
and  the  five  hundred  brethren,  then  all  else  is  clear. 
The  one  great  mystery  of  the  resurrection  explains 

366 


Theory  of  Hallucination 

other  mysteries.  We  have  a  sufficient  cause  for  the 
transformation  of  character  in  the  disciples  and  for 
all  the  subsequent  course  of  history.  But,  if  he  did  not 
rise  from  the  dead,  what  was  the  event  which  happened 
on  that  Easter  Day,  and  which  created  the  faith  in  the 
resurrection  ?* 

The  answer  which,  probably,  is  at  present  most  com- 
monly given  to  this  ciuestion,  by  those  who  deny  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection,  is  that  the  origin  of  the 
faith  was  in  a  vision  or  hallucination,  which  was  ex- 
perienced at  first  by  a  few  of  the  more  imaginative  of 
the  disciples,  by  whom,  gradually,  a  sympathetic  delu- 
sion was  induced  in  others.  As  this  theory  has  been 
developed  by  Renan,  the  credit  of  originating  the  no- 
tion of  the  resurrection  is  given  to  Mary  Magdalene. f 
The  mental  malady  of  which  she  had  been  healed  had 
left  her  imagination  in  a  peculiarly  excitable  condition. 
The  faith  which  has  regenerated  humanity,  accord- 
ingly, had  its  origin  as  a  pathological  symptom  in  the 
brain  of  a  half-crazy  woman.  Instead  of  being  shocked 
at  this  conclusion,  Renan  seems  to  find  in  it  something 
peculiarly  sweet  to  his  aesthetic  sensibilities ;  and,  with 
that  curious  sentimentalism  which  gives  to  all  his  writ- 
ings an  air  of  indifference  to  truth  and  of  essential  un- 

*  I  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  notion  which  formerly  fotmd 
some  advocates,  that  Jesus  had  not  died,  and  that  his  supposed  resurrection 
was  only  a  recovery  from  a  swoon.  The  manifold  difficulties  to  which  this 
hypothesis  is  exposed  have  led  to  an  almost  unanimous  rejection  of  it  as  incred- 
ible. Professor  Huxley  attempted  to  revive  the  hypothesis  in  a  paper  which 
he  read  before  the  Metaphysical  Society,  "  in  which  he  argued  that  there  was 
no  valid  evidence  of  actual  death  having  taken  place."  Life  and  Letters^ 
vol.  i,  p.  342.  The  paper  seems  not  to  have  been  published.  His  position  is 
interesting  chiefly  as  indicating  his  recognition  of  the  weakness  of  the  hypoth- 
esis more  commonly  adopted  by  those  who  do  not  accept  the  resurrection  as 
historic.  t  Life  of  Jesus  ^  ch.  xxvi. 

367 


Miracle 

morality,  he  exclaims,  ''Divine  power  of  love!  sacred 
moments  in  which  the  passion  of  a  hallucinated  woman 
gives  to  the  world  a  risen  God !" 

The  first  suggestion  of  the  resurrection  came  from 
Mary  Magdalene;  but  others  were  destined  soon  to 
share  the  same  delusion.*  >  So  contagious,  indeed,  was 
Mary's  faith  and  enthusiasm  that  some  of  the  disciples 
imagined  they  saw  the  risen  Lord  that  same  day  in 
Jerusalem.  But  the  visions  became  more  frequent 
when,  a  few  days  later,  the  apostles  returned  to  Galilee. 
They  lingered  around  the  beautiful  lake,  where  every 
village  and  every  hillside  was  linked  by  fond  associa- 
tion in  their  minds  with  the  memory  of  Jesus,  where 
the  blue  waters  seemed  still  to  mirror  his  serene  face, 
and  the  very  air  seemed  still  pulsating  with  the  music 
of  his  voice.  As  they  lingered  amid  those  scenes,  their 
minds  fell  more  and  more  under  the  spell  of  those  fond 
memories,  till  one  and  another  seemed  to  himself  to 
see  the  loved  form  of  the  Master  and  to  hear  his  voice. 
And  the  hallucination  of  some  became  the  faith  of  all 
the  disciples. 

But,  if  the  appearance  of  the  risen  Lord  was  a  delu- 
sion or  hallucination,  it  was  certainly  a  most  peculiar 
one.  The  natural  history  of  hallucinations  has  been 
extensively  studied,  and  their  laws  are  pretty  well  un- 
derstood. Somewhat  of  the  history  of  this  particular 
delusion,  if  it  was  one,  we  can  gather  from  the  New 
Testament  narratives.  The  honesty  of  those  narra- 
tives is  unimpeachable.     Even  on  the  theory  of  hallu- 

*  Renan,  The  Apostles^  ch.  i-iii. 

368 


Hallucination  Theory  Criticized 

ci nation,  we  may  assume  that  we  have  a  substantially 
veracious,  though  uncritical,  narrative  of  the  subjective 
experiences  of  the  disciples.  So  far  as  we  can  thus 
trace  the  history  of  this  delusion,  it  seems  to  have  been 
of  a  very  exceptional  sort. 

A  delusion  is  apt  to  be  preceded  by  a  state  of 
strongly  excited  expectancy.  The  person  sees  what 
he  has  been  made  to  believe  he  will  see.  But  in  this 
case  there  was  no  such  expectation.  The  death  of 
Jesus  plunged  the  disciples  into  utter  despair.  What- 
ever he  had  said  about  his  death  and  resurrection  had 
been  so  completely  at  variance  with  all  their  prepos- 
sessions that  it  had  made  no  impression  on  their  stolid 
unbelief.  When  Mary  found  the  sepulcher  empty,  she 
could  only  .think  that  some  one  had  taken  away  the 
body  and  laid  it  she  knew  not  where.*  The  reports 
of  the  women  to  the  apostles  "seemed  to  them  as  idle 
tales,  and  they  believed  them  not."f  The  mental  at- 
titude of  the  disciples  was  the  very  opposite  of  that 
state  of  expectant  attention  in  which  hallucinations 
most  frequently  originate. 

A  delusion  most  commonly  affects  only  a  single  in- 
dividual. Shakespeare  is  psychologfcally  correct  in 
making  Banquo's  ghost  invisible  to  the  rest  of  the  com- 
pany, though  profoundly  real  to  the  guilty  fears  of 
Macbeth.  But  in  this  case  the  delusion  affected  simul- 
taneously considerable  numbers  of  persons — in  one  in- 
stance over  five  hundred,^ — including,  doubtless,  men 
of    all    varieties    of    temperament,    hopeful    and    de- 

*  John,  XX,  13.  t  Luke,  xxiv,  11.  J  I  Cor.,  xv,  6. 


Miracle 

spondent,  imaginative  and  prosaic.  All  saw  the  same 
blessed  vision.  In  the  cases  in  which  delusions  have 
become  epidemic  and  affected  considerable  numbers 
of  persons,  they  have  generally  had  a  history  extend- 
ing over  some  months  or  years,  in  which  they  have 
gradually  become  prevalent  and  as  gradually  declined. 
In  this  case  there  was  no  such  gradual  development. 
The  faith  of  the  apostles,  excepting  Thomas,  in  the 
reality  of  the  resurrection  was  established  before  the 
close  of  the  Easter  Day.  The  appearances  reported 
are  few  in  number,  and  all  were  comprised  within  the 
space  of  forty  days.  After  that  short  period  the  risen 
Jesus  vanishes  forever.  Whatever  fantastic  visions 
appeared  to  the  imagination  of  more  or  less  fanatical 
Christians,  the  risen  Jesus  walked  the  earth  no  more. 
The  delusion  vanished  as  suddenly  as  it  came.  The 
dream  was  dreamed  out  in  forty  days. 

A  delusion  generally  affects  a  single  sense — most 
commonly  sight  or  hearing;  and  the  delusion  of  sight 
is  shown  to  be  such  by  the  failure  of  the  tactual  sensa- 
tions which  would  be  experienced  if  the  supposed  ob- 
jective cause  of  the  visual  sensations  were  real.  When 
the  hand  cannot  clutch  the  air-drawn  dagger,  the  dag- 
ger is  only  "a.  dagger  of  the  mind."*  In  this  case, 
apparently,  the  tactual  sensations  corresponded  with 
the  visual.  The  transparently  artless  narratives  seem 
to  indicate  that  all  unconsciously  the  disciples  tried 
the  very  experiment  which  a  physiological  psycholo- 

*  An  interesting  illustration  of  this  principle  is  seen  in  the  case  of  Mrs.  A., 
reported  in  Brewster's  Letters  on  Natural  Magie,  quoted  by  Huxley,  Lessons 
in  Elementary  Physiology,  6th  edition,  Appendix  B. 


Concurrent  Evidence  of  Two  Senses 

gist  would  have  suggested.  The  women,  says  Mat- 
thew, ''took  hold  of  his  feet."*  Had  the  visual  sensa- 
tion been  a  delusion,  the  hands  would  have  grasped 
only  air.  To  the  terrified  apostles,  who  "supposed  that 
they  had  seen  a  spirit,"  Jesus  said,  according  to  Luke's 
report,  "Behold  my  hands  and  my  feet,  that  it  is  I 
myself :  handle  me  and  see ;  for  a  spirit  hath  not  flesh 
and  bones,  as  ye  see  me  have."  And  John's  faithful 
memory  has  preserved  the  story  how  the  doubting 
Thomas  had  his  doubts  set  at  rest  when  Jesus  gave 
him  the  evidence  which  he  demanded — "Reach  hither 
thy  finger,  and  behold  my  hands ;  and  reach  hither  thy 
hand,  and  thrust  it  into  my  side."f 

I  realize  fully  the  difficulties  which  the  thought  of 
the  present  age  must  find  in  accepting  the  faith  in  the 
resurrection.  I  see  the  solemn  procession  of  the  gen- 
erations marching  into 

"The  undiscovered  country  from  whose  bourn 
No  traveler  returns." 

*  Revised  Version — here,  as  usually,  more  accurate  than  the  Authorized 
Version. 

t  The  view  which  Keim  has  presented  in  his  Geschichte  Jesu  von  N'azara, 
agrees  with  that  of  Renan  and  others  in  making  the  appearances  of  the  risen 
Jesus  to  the  disciples  purely  subjective.  From  an  ethico-theological  stand- 
point, however,  Keim's  position  differs  very  widely  from  Renan's.  Keim  holds 
that  the  vision  of  the  risen  Lord  came  to  the  disciples  by  a  special  divine  in- 
fluence exerted  upon  their  souls,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  them  of  the 
continued  life  of  their  Master,  and  of  the  triumph  of  his  kingdom  in  spite  of 
seeming  defeat.  The  vision  was,  then,  a  genuine  miracle,  though  it  was  a 
miracle  in  the  subjective  sphere  of  consciousness,  and  not  in  the  objective 
sphere  of  material  things.  There  is,  perhaps,  no  very  serious  objection  a 
priori  lo  the  notion  of  that  sort  of  a  miracle.  The  effect  upon  the  minds  of 
the  disciples  would  have  been  the  same  as  if  the  miracle  had  been  in  the  ob- 
jective sphere.  Rut  the  critical  process  by  which  Keim  reaches  his  conclusion 
seems  arbitrary  and  unreasonable.  He  rejects  the  narratives  in  the  Gospels 
as  worthless,  holding  that  Paul's  statement  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians is  the  sole  trustworthy  authority  for  the  fact  of  the  resurrection.  I  be- 
lieve that  a  sound  criticism  must  maintain  the  substantially  historic  character 
of  the  Gospel  narratives,  in  spite  of  discrepancies  in  details,  and  even  if  some 


MiRACLfi 

I  realize  the  improbability  of  an  exception  to  a  gen- 
eralization sustained  by  so  immense  a  mass  of  accord- 
ant experience.  But,  when  I  think  of  the  alternatives 
to  belief  in  the  resurrection,  they  all  seem  so  much 
more  improbable  that  I  find  it  easier  to  accept  the  one 
mystery  which  explains  all  mysteries.  To  believe  that 
the  faith  in  the  resurrection  was  a  delusion  so  contra- 
dicting all  psychological  laws,  or  a  myth  which  was 
fully  developed  in  a  single  day,  or  a  falsehood  perpe- 
trated by  the  disciples  to  bring  upon  themselves  im- 
prisonment and  death — to  believe  that  the  system  of 
religious  faith  which  has  created  a  new  and  nobler 
civilization  had  its  origin  in  fraud  or  self-deception — 
taxes  credulity  more  than  to  believe  that  Jesus  rose 
from  the  dead. 

If  we  accept  as  probably  historic  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  the  obvious  corollary  is  suggested,  that  miracle 
is  part  of  the  divine  plan  of  revelation, — that  the  Ruler 
of  the  universe,  in  revealing  himself  to  mankind,  has 
seen  fit  to  authenticate  that  revelation  by  extraordinary 
events  in  the  physical  world.  From  this  point  of  view 
it  appears  probable  that  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  has  not  been  an  isolated  instance,  but  that 
other  miracles  more  or  less  numerous  have  attended 
the  critical  epochs  in  the  history  of  revelation. 

This  suggestion  finds  confirmation  in  the  peculiar 
chronological  distribution  of  miracles  in  sacred  his- 
tory.    With  very  few  exceptions,  the  miraculous  nar- 

admixture  of  leg-endary  elements  is  conceded.     Of  course,  Keim's  theory  falls 
to  the  ground  if  the  Gospel  narratives  are  trustworthy. 


Chronological  Distribution  of  Miracles 

ratives  of  the  Bible  are  included  in  three  great  groups. 
One  series  of  miracles  is  found  in  connection  with  the 
Exodus,  and  the  inauguration  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
the  establishment  of  the  Jewish  church  and  theocratic 
state.  A  second  series  of  miracles  occurs  in  connection 
with  the  inauguration  of  the  prophetic  ministry,  under 
Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  the  great  conflict  in  the  king- 
dom of  Israel  between  the  religion  of  Jehovah  and  that 
of  Baal.  The  third  and  greatest  series  of  miracles 
attends  the  introduction  of  Christianity  under  the  min- 
istry of  Jesus  himself  and  the  apostles.  Now,  if  stories 
of  miraculous  events  are  simply  the  product  of  the 
imaginative  tendencies  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  any  adequate  reason  for  this  limitation  of 
miracle  to  three  well-defined  groups.  We  should  ex- 
pect them  to  be  more  uniformly  distributed  through 
sacred  history.  Especially  we  should  expect  the  lives 
of  peculiarly  interesting  and  picturesque  characters  to 
be  adorned  with  legends  of  miracles.  Abraham,  the 
father  of  the  faithful  and  the  friend  of  God,  is  a  very 
striking  figure  in  sacred  history.  David,  the  sweet 
singer  and  shepherd  king,  is  the  very  incarnation  of 
romance  and  poetry.  And,  if  the  stories  of  miracles 
in  the  Bible  were  simply  the  product  of  the  uncritical 
imagination  which  transforms  history  into  legend,  we 
should  expect  the  biographies  of- Abraham  and  David 
to  be  luminous  with  the  glory  of  miracle ;  but  we  find 
scarcely  a  trace  of  miracle  in  the  life  of  e;ither  of  these 
men.  The  limitation  of  miracle  to  three  great  series, 
marking  respectively  the  Mosaic,  the  prophetic,  and 

373 


Miracle 

the  Christian  dispensation  in  the  history  of  revelation, 
finds  its  most  reasonable  explanation  in  the  belief  that 
miracle  forms  a  part  of  the  divine  plan  of  revelation, 
and  that  each  of  the  great  critical  stages  in  the  devel- 
opment of  a  progressive  revelation  has  been  marked 
by  more  or  less  numerous  miracles. 

The  acceptance  of  this  conclusion  by  no  means  re- 
quires us  to  accept  as  historic  all  the  miraculous  nar- 
ratives of  the  Old  Testament  or  even  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. While  it  is  probable  that  each  great  epoch  in 
the  history  of  revelation  has  been  marked  by  actual 
miracles  more  or  less  numerous,  it  is  not  unlikely  that 
with  those  narratives  of  miracle  which  are  truly  his- 
toric others  may  have  come  to  be  associated  which  are 
legendary.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  legendary 
elements  in  considerably  large  degree  are  mingled  in 
the  Old  Testament  history,  and  in  less  degree  even  in 
the  New  Testament  history.  Each  miraculous  narra- 
tive in  the  Bible,  then,  must  be  subjected  to  a  distinct 
critical  investigation.  They  differ  very  widely  in  their 
degree  of  probability  both  a  priori  and  a  posteriori. 
Some  miracles  are  characterized  by  a  dignity,  and  a 
congruity  with  the  revelation  of  truth  which  they  are 
supposed  to  authenticate,  that  commend  them  strongly 
to  our  belief.  Others  are  trivial  or  grotesque,  and  un- 
accompanied by  any  revelation  of  moral  or  religious 
truth  which  seems  to  constitute  an  adequate  reason  for 
their  existence.  As  the  different  miracles  of  the  Bible 
differ  widely  in  the  degree  of  their  a  priori  probability, 
so  they  differ  widely  in  the  value  of  the  testimony  by 

374 


Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still 

which  they  are  supported.  In  the  case  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus,  we  have  found  unquestionable  evidence 
of  contemporary  belief  in  its  reality.  In  the  case  of 
many  of  the  Old  Testament  miracles,  there  is  no  ap- 
proximation to  contemporary  testimony. 

As  an  illustration  of  a  miracle  which  seems  to  have 
very  little  claim  to  acceptance  as  a  historic  fact,  we 
may  take  the  case  of  the  sun  and  moon  standing  still 
in  obedience  to  the  word  of  Joshua.*  It  is  enormously 
improbable  a  priori  that  the  rotation  of  the  earth  was 
suspended  in  order  that  Joshua  might  have  a  few  more 
hours  of  daylight  wherein  to  slaughter  a  few  more  of 
the  Amorites.  Only  on  very  strong  evidence  could 
such  an  allegation  find  credence.  The  story  occurs  in 
a  book  which  nearly  all  recent  critics  regard  as  com- 
posite, documents  of  different  ages  having  been  com- 
piled by  a  later  editor  to  form  a  continuous  narrative. 
Nothing  very  definite  is  known  in  regard  to  the  author- 
ship and  the  date,  either  of  the  original  documents  or 
of  the  compilation.  In  this  anonymous  and  dateless 
compilation,  the  command  of  Joshua  to  the  sun  and 
moon  is  introduced  as  a  quotation  from  another  date- 
less and  anonymous  book,  the  Book  of  Jasher.  Of  this 
latter  book  we  know  nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  it 
is  twice  quoted  in  the  extant  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, f  The  other  quotation  in  the  Old  Testament  at- 
tributed to  the  Book  of  Jasher  is  the  elegy  which  David 
is  said  to  have  composed  after  the  death  of  Saul  and 

*Josh.,  X,  12-14. 

t  There  may  be  a  third  quotation  from  the  Book  of  Jasher  in  I  Kings,  viii, 
12, 13.   See  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  axi.  Jasher ,  by  W.  H.  Bennett. 

375 


Miracle 

Jonathan.*  The  Book  of  Jasher,  then,  is  certainly  not 
earher  in  date  than  the  time  of  David;  how  much 
later,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  It  is  evident  then 
that  we  have  nothing  that  makes  any  approach  to  the 
character  of  contemporary  testimony  in  regard  to  the 
incident  in  question.  Moreover,  the  Book  of  Jasher 
seems  to  have  been  a  collection  of  poems;  and  the 
poetic  character  of  the  language  in  the  present  case 
suggests  the  probability  that  the  standing  still  of  sun 
and  moon  was  originally  only  a  figure  of  speech.  The 
sun  always  stands  still  for  him  who  works  with  heroic 
enthusiasm  to  accomplish  what  he  believes  to  be  a 
divine  mission.  It  seems  likely  that  a  more  prosaic 
compiler  mistook  the  poet's  figure  for  historic  fact. 
But,  whether  that  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  genesis 
of  the  narrative  or  not,  there  is  no  reason  to  justify  a 
belief  that  the  rotation  of  the  earth  was  suspended. 

For  another  illustration  of  the  same  sort  we  may 
take  the  case  of  Jonah.  The  story  of  the  whale  or  sea 
monster  is  certainly  too  grotesque  to  have  any  a  priori 
probability.  By  its  historic  allusions  and  by  its  lin- 
guistic characteristics,  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  shown  to 
belong  to  a  date  at  least  two  hundred  years  subsequent 
to  the  time  when  the  prophet  is  supposed  to  have  lived. 
The  non-miraculous  parts  of  the  narrative  are  only 
surpassed  in  improbability  by  the  miracle  itself.  In 
all  probability  the  narrative  was  originally  intended  to 
be  symbolic;  the  whole  story  being  a  sort  of  parable, 
whose  moral  teaching  is  a  protest  against  the  narrow- 

*1I  Sam.,  i,  19-27. 


Jonah  and  the  Whale 

ness  of  prevalent  Jewish  conceptions  as  to  the  charac- 
ter of  Jehovah  and  his  rehgion.  The  teaching  of  the 
book  is  indeed  an  anticipation  of  Paul's  assertion  that 
God  is  not  "the  God  of  the  Jews  only"  but  "of  the  Gen- 
tiles also."  No  utterance  of  Hebrew  prophecy  breathes 
a  spirit  more  truly  and  nobly  Christian.  Whether  the 
symbolic  narrative  has  any  foundation  in  fact,  and,  if 
so,  what  that  foundation  may  have  been,  are  questions 
to  which  no  definite  answer  can  be  given.  The  con- 
jecture is  not  without  plausibility  that  the  psalm  of 
praise  attributed  to  the  prophet,  commemorating  his 
deliverance  from  the  perils  of  the  sea,  forming  now 
the  second  chapter  of  the  book,  may  have  been  written 
in  celebration  of  an  escape  from  shipwreck.*  But, 
whatever  opinions  we  may  hold  as  to  the  literary  char- 
acter and  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Book  of  Jonah,  there 
is  surely  no  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that  the 
prophet  was  swallowed  by  a  sea  monster,  kept  alive 
for  three  days  in  the  alimentary  canal  of  that  creature, 
and  subsequently  discharged  alive  upon  the  shore. 

It  must  be  recognized  even  in  the  life  of  Jesus  that 
various  miraculous  events  are  attended  by  unequal 
degrees  of  evidence.  The  contrast  in  this  respect  is 
very  striking  between  the  two  miraculous  events  which 
have  come  to  be  included  in  the  creeds  of  Christen- 
dom— the  virgin  birth  and  the  resurrection.  The 
strength  of  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection  we  have 
already  considered.  The  belief  in  the  resurrection  was 
the  very  corner-stone  upon  which  historic  Christianity 

*  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament^  p.  304. 

Z77 


Miracle 

was  built:  the  very  existence  of  the  church  is  proof 
of  contemporaneous  behef  in  the  resurrection  as  his- 
toric. The  assertion  of  the  resurrection  formed  the 
staple  of  apostolic  preaching.  The  fact  is  asserted  or 
implied  on  almost  every  page  of  the  Acts  and  Epistles. 
To  dissect  out  from  the  New  Testament  the  story  of 
the  resurrection  would  be  to  cut  the  book  into  frag- 
ments..  On  the  other  hand,  the  story  of  the  virgin 
birth  is  referred  to  only  in  the  opening  chapters  of 
Matthew  and  Luke — chapters  which  seem  to  have  a 
somewhat  different  tone  and  character  from  the  re- 
maining parts  of  the  same  Gospels.  If  those  opening 
chapters  of  Matthew  and  Luke  were  dropped  out,  not 
a  line  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  would  thereby 
require  alteration ;  for  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  there  an  assertion  or  an  obvious  and  unam- 
biguous implication  of  the  virgin  birth.  I  do  not  say 
that  the  miraculous  birth  is  not  a  historic  fact.  A 
strong  argument  may  be  made  for  its  historic  truth. 
But  the  evidence  in  its  favor  is  incomparably  less 
strong  than  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection;  and, 
with  perfect  consistency,  a  critic  may  believe  that  the 
resurrection  is  a  historic  fact,  and  the  miraculous  birth 
a  legend.  Accepting  the  pro^xDsition  that  miracle  is  a 
part  of  the  divine  plan  of  revelation,  we  can  find  no 
difficulty  in  accepting  as  historic  most  of  the  miracles 
of  Jesus  related  in  the  Gospels.  They  are  in  general 
so  dignified,  so  full  of  moral  significance  in  them- 
selves, so  appropriate  to  the  religious  teaching  which 
they  authenticate,  as  to  commend  themselves  strongly 

378 


Miracles  Attending  the  Life  of  Jesus 

to  our  belief.  Yet  the  critical  mind  can  hardly  es- 
cape the  feeling  that  a  few  of  the  miraculous  stories 
in  the  life  of  Jesus  have  something  of  a  legendary 
aspect.  The  story  of  the  piece  of  money  that  Peter 
found  in  the  mouth  of  the  fish*  has  a  grotesque  aspect 
quite  different  from  that  of  most  of  the  miracles  of 
Jesus;  and  a  person  of  scientific  and  critical  habit  of 
mind  cannot  easily  believe  that  a  legion  of  devils  act- 
ually entered  into  a  herd  of  swine. f 

My  object  in  referring  to  these  instances  has  been 
to  indicate  the  general  attitude  in  which  the  study  of 
the  miraculous  narratives  of  the  Bible  must  be  con- 
ducted. The  recognition  of  miracle  as  part  of  the 
divine  plan  involves  the  probable  occurrence  of  mir- 
acles more  or  less  numerous  at  each  critical  stage  of 
revelation;  but  it  must  be  the  work  of  a  criticism  at 
once  fearless  and  reverent  to  examine  independently 
each  one  of  the  Biblical  narratives  and  estimate  its 
degree  of  probability.  Some  miracles  can  be  very  con- 
fidently accepted.  A  critical  examination  of  others 
seems  to  require  their  rejection  as  unhistorical.  In  re- 
gard to  a  large  number,  the  wisest  attitude  may  prob- 
ably be  a  suspension  of  judgment. 

There  can  be  no  more  pernicious  teaching  than  that 
which  is  offered  by  many  good  men  In  the  most  devout 
spirit  and  with  the  best  of  motives — the  teaching  that 
all  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  must  stand  or  fall  to- 
gether.   The  great  strength  of  the  evidence  of  the  res- 

*Matt.,  xvii,  24-27. 

t  Matt.,  viii,  28-34  ;  Mark,  v,  1-20  ;  Luke,  viii,  26-39. 

379 


Miracle 

iirrection  of  Jesus  renders  reasonable  not  only  the 
acceptance  of  that  miracle,  but  also  the  acceptance  of 
other  miracles  in  themselves  supported  by  far  less  of 
evidence;  but  the  Christian  apologist  must  beware  of 
carrying  this  line  of  argument  too  far.  There  is  a 
limit  to  the  acceptance  of  beliefs,  otherwise  improb- 
able, as  corollaries  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  Strong  as  is  that  foundation,  it  may  be  crushed 
by  building  upon  it  too  heavy  a  superstructure.  There 
is  no  more  effective  way  of  destroying  the  faith  in 
Christianity  than  to  teach  men  that  we  cannot  accept 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  without  accepting  as  equally 
historic  the  standing  still  of  sun  and  moon  and  Jonah's 
sojourn  in  the  whale. 

The  subject  of  ecclesiastical  miracles  and  that  of 
pagan  miracles  require  no  extended  discussion.  The 
numerous  miracles  with  which  the  lives  of  medieval 
saints  have  been  adorned,  are  for  the  most  part  trifling, 
grotesque,  or  ridiculous.  They  inculcate  no  moral 
lessons ;  they  teach  no  doctrine  except  that  of  the  emi- 
nent salntship  of  the  person  about  whom  they  are  re- 
lated. The  lives  of  the  saints,  in  which  they  are  re- 
lated, are  generally  of  so  sentimental  a  character  as  to 
be  utterly  untrustworthy,  and  in  most  cases  there  is  no 
contemporary  testimony.*  If  possible,  still  more  un- 
worthy of  credence  are  most  of  the  miracles  or  prod- 
igies  connected   with   the  lives   of  pagan   saints  and 

*  Some  of  the  remarkable  stories  related  of  the  saints  are  doubtless  historic, 
but  not  miraculous.  There  is  no  rea'^on  to  doubt  that  Saint  Francis  of  Assisi 
had  the  stigmata  in  his  hands  and  feet.  The  same  phenomenon  has  appeared 
in  unquestionable  modern  instances,  and  admits  of  physiological  explanation. 
See  Carpenter,  Principles  of  Mental  Physiology^  p,  689. 

380 


Ecclesiastical,  Pagan,  and  Modern  Miracles 

heroes.  The  contrast  between  these  pagan  and  eccle- 
siastical miracles,  and  the  great  majority  of  the  miracles 
of  the  New  Testament,  was  clearly  recognized  in  the 
remark  of  Niebnhr  in  regard  to  the  New  Testament 
miracles,  that  *'it  only  requires  a  comparison  with 
legends,  or  the  pretended  miracles  of  other  reli- 
gions, to  perceive  by  what  a  different  spirit  they  are 
animated."* 

Nor  is  there  need  of  any  extended  discussion  of  so- 
called  modern  miracles,  such  as  those  of  faith-healers 
and  Christian  Scientists.  The  cures  wrought  are  often 
incomplete  and  temporary.  A  large  share  of  the  cases 
are  cases  of  those  obscure  nervous  diseases  which,  as 
every  student  of  physiology  and  psychology  knows, 
are  very  likely  to  be  temporarily  mitigated  or  perma- 
nently cured  by  the  influence  of  strong  mental  impres- 
sions upon  the  nervous  system.  Such  cases  are  often 
cured  by  spiritualists  or  mesmerists,  by  mental  sug- 
gestions communicated  by  a  physician  in  whom  the 
patient  has  confidence,  or  by  purely  accidental  causes 
like  an  alarm  of  fire  in  a  house  in  which  a  bed-ridden 
patient  is  lying.  While  we  must  hold  fast  to  the  asser- 
tion of  Hume,f  that  "whatever  is  intelligible  and  can 
lie  distinctly  conceived,  implies  no  contradiction,  and 
can  never  be  proved  false  by  any  demonstrative  argu- 
ment, or  abstract  reasoning  a  priori,"  and  while  there- 
fore the  possibility  of  the  occurrence  of  very  extraor- 
dinary events  at  any  time  in  the  past  or  future  must 
— — — — i . — _ — . — 

*  Memoir  of  Niebu/tr,  American  edition,  p.  236  ;  cited  by  Fisher,  Grounds  0/ 
Theistic  a'nd  Christian  Beliefs  revised  edition,  p.  432. 
t  Cited  on  page  354. 

381 


Miracle 

be  conceded,  the  only  miracles  which  can  be  considered 
as  reasonably  well  attested  are  those  which  mark  the 
successive  stages  of  that  progressive  revelation  which 
has  culminated  in  Christianity. 

And  now  we  must  ask,  what  is  the  significance  of 
miracle?  Assuming  that  miracles  have  occurred  in 
connection  with  the  introduction  of  particular  phases 
of  religious  teaching,  we  must  ask,  what  purpose"  have 
those  miracles  served  ?  In  the  first  place,  miracles  at- 
tract attention  to  the  religious  teacher  by  whom  they 
are  performed.  The  multitudes  followed  Jesus  and 
listened  to  him,  because  they  saw  his  miracles.  Mir- 
acles, then,  arouse  attention  and  secure  a  hearing  for 
the  teacher.  But  the  significance  of  a  miracle  is  far 
more  than  merely  to  excite  attention.  A  miracle  serves 
to  authenticate  as  authoritative  the  teaching  with 
which  it  is  associated.  The  significance  of  miracle 
was  expressed  in  the  words  of  Nicodemus:*  "Rabbi, 
we  know  that  thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God;  for 
no  man  can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest,  except 
God  be  with  him."  The  divine  power  revealed  in  the 
acjts  of  Jesus  attested  the  divine  authority  of  the  words 
of  Jesus.  The  thought  of  Nicodemus  would  require 
somewhat  of  restatement  to  bring  it  into  accord  with 
our  philosophic  views  of  divine  immanence  and  the 
constancy  of  natural  laws;  but  the  argument  in  its 
essential  meaning  is  still  valid.  If  the  Ordainer  of 
the  whole  system  of  natural  law  has  so  planned  that 
system  as  to  make  a  startling  event,  inexplicable  to 

*  John,  iii,  2. 

382 


Significance  of  Miracle 

human  knowledge,  and  contradicting  the  inductions 
founded  on  previous  experience,  occur  in  coincidence 
with  reHgious  teaching  of  extraordinary  significance, 
it  must  be  assumed  that  the  coincidence  is  designed, 
and  that  the  design  of  such  coincidence  is  the  authenti- 
cation of  the  teaching  as  authoritative.  The  miracles 
of  Jesus,  then,  not  only  command  attention  but  com- 
mand belief. 

Such,  then,  was  the  office  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus 
in  their  time;  but  the  question  remains,  have  those 
miracles  any  value  to  us?  Now  that  Christianity  has 
found  a  wide  and  sympathetic  hearing,  and  has  com- 
mended itself  to  the  judgment  of  mankind  by  its  in- 
trinsic beauty,  its  accord  with  the  highest  philosophy, 
and  its  adaptation  to  the  moral  needs  of  humanity, — 
now  that  it  has  become  embodied  in  the  institutions  of 
Christian  civilization, — are  the  old  miracles  of  any 
value  to  us?  Did  miracle  serve  only  to  introduce 
Christian  faith  when  Christian  faith  was  a  stranger 
to  the  world,  or  does  it  serve  still  to  support  Christian 
faith?  Was  miracle  only  a  scaffolding,  which  was 
necessary  when  the  temple  of  Christianity  was  in  proc- 
ess of  building,  but  which  might  well  be  pulled  down 
or  allowed  to  fall  into  ruin  when  the  edifice  was  fin- 
ised?  or  is  it  still  a  structural  element  of  the  building, 
a  pillar  by  which  in  part  the  building  is  supported  ?  Not 
a  few  devout  and  thoughtful  people  have  believed  that 
the  remarkable  phenomena  which  appeared  in  con- 
nection with  the  teaching  of  Jesus  had  their  mission 
in  introducing  the  teaching  of  Jesus  to  the  world,  but 

383 


Miracle 

that  they  are  of  no  value  to  us,  and  that  it  is  of  no 
consequence  whether  the  supposed  events  were  his- 
toric facts  or  illusions.  Unquestionably  there  is  a  truth 
underlying  this  line  of  thought — the  truth  that  other 
phases  of  Christian  evidence  have  developed  them- 
selves into  greater  relative  importance  with  the  prog- 
ress of  Christian  thought  and  life,  and  that  the  evi- 
dence afforded  by  miracle  is  of  less  relative  importance 
than  at  the  beginning  of  Christianity.  Yet  I  believe 
that  the  evidence  of  miracle  is  still  valid  and  still 
needed.  We  stand  in  an  upper  room  in  Jerusalem,  and 
listen  to  the  words  with  which  the  young  Prophet  of 
Gahlee  comforted  his  disciples  on  the  last  night  of 
his  life.  "Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled :  ye  believe 
in  God,  believe  also  in  me.  In  my  Father's  house  are 
many  mansions :  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told 
you.  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go 
and  prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  will  come  again,  and  re- 
ceive you  unto  myself;'  that  where  I  am,  there  ye  may 
be  also."  Beautiful  words,  in  their  sweet  simplicity, 
and  in  their  accord  with  our  highest  moral  sentiments, 
our  holiest  aspirations!  Words  so  beautiful  ought  to 
be  true.  But  are  they  the  w^ords  of  one  who  speaks 
with  authority  and  whose  word  can  be  trusted?  or  are 
they  only  the  sweet  dreams  of  a  spirit  too  pure  and 
gentle  for  this  hard,  rough  world?  To  us,  as  to  those 
disciples  who  heard  him,  the  evidence  of  the  authority 
of  his  teaching  is  found  in  the  fact  of  his  resurrection. 
It  was  not  so  much  the  beautiful  farewell  address  to 
the  disciples,   as  the  empty  sepulcher  on  the  Easter 

384 


or  THE 

UNIVERSITY    S 
Revelation  and  the  BhiiiiiS 

morning,  that  "brought  life  and  immortahty  to  light.'* 
The  words  which  the  church  reads  over  the  graves  of 
its  dead,  and  which  bring  to  a  dying  world  the  bright- 
est hope  that  it  has  ever  known,  are  taken  from  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corin- 
thians— the  chapter  in  which  we  have  the  earliest  and 
the  most  certainly  authentic  record  of  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus. 

Revelation  and  the  Bible 

In  the  controversies  attending  and  following  the 
Reformation,  Protestants  were  led  to  emphasize  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  in  contrast  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  authority  of  the  church.  One 
unhappy  result  of  these  controversies  was  an  extrava- 
gant and  superstitious  notion  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
Bible  to  the  Christian  revelation.  That  exaggerated 
estimate  of  the  position  of  the  Bible  found  expression 
in  the  phrase  oft  repeated  as  a  watchword  of  Protes- 
tantism, "the  Bible  the  religion  of  Protestants."  Cer- 
tainly the  Bible  is  not  our  religion.  Christianity  is  a 
series  of  historic  facts,  a  system  of  theological  doc- 
trines, a  life  of  faith  and  consecration.  The  Bible  con- 
tains indeed  a  record  of  those  facts,  teaches  those 
doctrines,  and  tends  to  inspire  the  soul  to  live  that 
life;  but  in  no  sense  is  the  Christian  religion  synony- 
mous or  coextensive  with  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  not 
the  revelation,  but  the  record  of  the  revelation;  and 
the  revelation  has  always  preceded  the  books  in  which 
it  has  been  recorded.     Abraham  and  Moses  had  no 

385 


Revelation  and  the  Bible 

Bible;  the  Christian  church  lived  and  grew  and  de- 
veloped in  theological  thought  and  religious  life  for 
more  than  half  a  century  before  the  latest  book  of  the 
New  Testament  was  written,  and  for  a  still  longer  time 
before  those  books  were  collected  to  form  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament. 

The  central  truth  of  revelation  is  that  God  has  spoken 
TToXvjiepcjg  Kat  iroXvTponojg — *'by  divers  portions  and  in 
divers  manners."*  We  need  not  suppose  that  he  has 
spoken  to  Jews  and  Christians  alone.  He  has  been  the 
God  "not  of  the  Jews  only,"  but  "of  the  Gentiles 
also;"  and  we  may  welcome  the  truth  that  has  been 
proclaimed  by  pagan  saints  and  sages  as  a  genuine 
revelation  of  God.f  Nevertheless,  the  supreme  man- 
ifestation of  God  to  man  is  in  that  historic  series  of 
revelations  which  culminates  in  the  appearance  of  Jesus 
Christ.  God  has  revealed  himself  in  human  life — in 
subjective  experiences,  and  in  objective  facts  of  indi- 
vidual and  national  history;  in  the  visions  of  divine 
truth  which  have  come  to  the  soul  of  the  seer  and  saint ; 
in  Abraham's  wandering  into  exile  to  found  a  mono- 
theistic family  and  a  theocratic  state,  in  the  Exodus 
and  the  Mosaic  law,  in  the  ritual  of  tabernacle  and 
temple,  in  prophetic  word  and  prophetic  symbol ;  and 
preeminently  in  the  sinless  life,  the  unique  teaching, 
and  the  works  of  love  and  power  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
in  the  great  facts  of  his  death  and  resurrection.  He 
revealed  himself  in  the  life  of  the  church  of  the  apos- 

*  Hebrews,  i,  i,  Revised  Version, 

t  So  Justin  Martyr  recognized  Socrates  as  divinely  enlightened.     Second 
Apology^  ch.  X. 

386 


Inspiration 

tolic  age,  and  reveals  himself  continuously  in  the  life 
of  the  church  of  all  ages. 

"  Slowly  the  Bible  of  the  race  is  writ, 

And  not  on  paper  leaves  nor  leaves  of  stone." 

Inspiration  is  not  identical  with  revelation.  Inspira- 
tion is  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  upon  a  human 
soul.  It  is  only  by  a  sort  of  metonymy  that  we  can 
predicate  inspiration  of  a  book.  An  inspired  book  can 
mean  nothing  other  than  a  book  written  by  inspired 
men.  There  is  nothing  on  earth  that'  can  be  inspired 
excepting  human  souls.  In  the  beautiful  liturgy  in 
which  so  largely  the  devotion  of  the  English-speaking 
world  has  found  expression,  men  are  taught  to  pray, 
"Cleanse  the  thoughts  of  our  hearts  by  the  inspiration 
of  thy  Holy  Spirit."  But  the  multitude  of  worshipers 
who  have  joined  in  that  prayer,  and  in  whose  lives  it 
has  found  an  answer,  have  neither  expected  nor  re- 
ceived new  revelations  of  religious  truth.  The  true 
Light  ''lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world." 
Inspiration  in  some  degree  is  the  privilege  of  every 
human  soul  that  does  not  willfully  close  its  doors 
against  the  heavenly  Guest;  and  to  all  those  who  are 
called  in  the  providence  of  God  to  positions  of  peculiar 
importance  and  responsibility,  may  come  a  special  in- 
spiration to  fit  them  for  the  work  they  are  called  to  do. 
The  true  preacher  prays  for  and  receives  an  inspiration 
that  gives  power  to  his  arguments  and  appeals.  The 
missionary  and  the  reformer  are  inspired  for  their  con- 
flicts with  heathenism  and  with  error.  And  so  to 
prophet  and  evangelist  and  apostle  came  inspiration  in 

387 


Revelation  and  the  Bible 

form  and  measure  to  qualify  them  for  the  service  which 
they  were  to  render  in  the  working  out  of  a  historic 
revelation.  The  inspiration  which  in  all  subsequent 
ages  of  the  church  has  come  out  of  the  Bible,  is  proof 
of  the  inspiration  that  went  into  the  Bible. 

It  is  needless  to  seek  for  diagnostic  characters  which 
will  distinguish  the  inspiration  of  the  men  of  the  Bible 
from  the  inspiration  of  later  workers  in  the  church — 
the  inspiration  of  Isaiah  and  Paul  from  that  of  Savon- 
arola and  Wesley.  The  truth  of  the  divine  immanence 
well-nigh  makes  void  the  distinction  of  natural  and 
supernatural  in  the  activities  of  God  in  the  physical 
universe.  The  supernatural  can  mean  no  more  than  the 
uncommon  or  unusual,  in  a  universe  which  is  all  di- 
vine.* In  like  manner,  a  true  philosophy  of  the  moral 
universe  will  recognize  the  universality  of  inspiration ; 
and  so  the  significance  of  the  inspiration  of  prophet  and 
evangelist  and  apostle  is  not  in  that  their  inspiration  dif- 
fers per  se,  qualitatively  or  quantitatively,  from  that  of 
God's  workmen  of  later  times,  but  simply  in  the  fact 
that  in  the  providence  of  God  they  were  called  to  the 
work  of  expounding  or  recording  the  successive  stages 
of  progressive  revelation.  The  historical  relation  of 
their  work  to  the  divine  plan,  not  anything  in  itself 
peculiar  in  their  experiences  of  the  divine  life,  gives 
to  their  work  a  unique  significance  and  value. 

*  "  The  only  distinct  meaning:  of  the  word  '  natural '  is  stated,  fixed,  or  set- 
tled ;  since  what  is  natural  as  much  requires  and  presupposes  an  intellio:ent 
agent  to  render  it  so,  i.  e.,  to  effect  it  continually  or  at  stated  times,  as  what  is 
supernatural  or  miraculous  does  to  effect  it  for  once."  Butler,  Analogy  of  Re- 
ligion. It  is  noteworthy  that  Darwin  quoted  this  passage  as  one  of  the  mot- 
toes opposite  the  title  page  of  the  Origin  of  Species, 

388 


Revelation  Progressive 

We  have  noticed  some  of  the  contradictions  between 
the  Scripture  text  and  the  facts  and  probabihties  of 
science,  which  are  irreconcilable  with  a  belief  in  the  in- 
errancy of  the  Bible.  But  science  is  not  alone  in  con- 
tradicting the  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  Bible. 
There  are  historical  inaccuracies  in  the  Bible  as  unques- 
tionably as  scientific  errors,  and  in  multitudes  of  cases 
various  parts  of  the  Bible  contradict  each  other.  Surely 
the  Bible  is  not  inerrant,  nor  is  there  any  reason  why  it 
should  be.  It  is  not  itself  the  revelation,  but  it  is 
a  record  of  the  revelation  which  was  given  in  human 
life  and  history.  For  the  purposes  of  such  a  record,  in- 
errancy is  not  necessary,  but  only  a  substantially  true 
representation  of  the  facts  of  revelation,  and  a  high 
spiritual  conception  of  its  ethical  and  religious  content. 

When  we  recognize  the  progressive  character  of 
revelation,  we  find  no  stumbling-block  in  the  imperfect 
conceptions  even  of  moral  and  religious  truth  set  forth 
in  the  Bible.  Neither  the  theology  nor  the  ethics  of 
the  Christian  dispensation  could  be  taught  to  the  Jews 
of  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  The  Mosaic  law  of  divorce 
is  not  the  Christian  law.  The  ethical  standard  of  the 
imprecatory  Psalms  is  not  that  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  The  religious  life  revealed  in  the  Book  of 
Judges  is  not  the  same  that  irradiates  the  Gospel  of 
John.  Like  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire  in  the  wilder- 
ness, God*s  revelation  marches  through  the  centuries 
before  his  people,  never  so  far  in  advance  as  to  be  out 
of  sight,  always  far  enough  in  advance  to  keep  devout 
and  obedient  souls  moving  forward. 

389 


Revelation  and  the  Bible 

Thus  we  recognize  in  what  sense  the  Bible  is  authori- 
tative. Since  inerrancy  or  infalhbihty  can  be  predi- 
cated neither  of  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  nor  of  any 
particular  part  of  the  Bible,  no  single  sentence  of  the 
Bible  can  be  in  itself  authoritative.  The  use  of  de- 
tached sentences  as  proof-texts,  without  regard  to  the 
context,  by  which  all  sorts  of  absurd  and  abominable 
doctrines  have  been  supposed  to  be  proved  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible,  rests  upon  principles  radically 
false.  But,  when  the  Bible  is  viewed  as  a  record  of 
a  progressive  revelation,  and  its  component  parts  are 
studied  with  a  literary  and  historic  sense  that  places 
us  in  the  standpoint  of  the  various  writers,  the  gen- 
eral significance  of  the  revelation  which  it  records  is 
intelligible  to  the  devout  and  candid  mind. 

When  we  come  to  think  of  the  Bible,  not  as  a  mag- 
ical book,  made  all  at  once,  and  dropped  upon  the 
earth  like  the  heaven-descended  idols  of  pagan  super- 
stition, but  rather  as  the  record  of  the  human  life  and 
experience  through  which  God  was  revealing  himself; 
when  we  feel  in  its  living  pages  the  pulsations  of  the 
hearts  of  men  who  were  struggling  with  the  evil  of 
their  times,  and  striving  to  live  the  truth  which  had 
been  revealed  to  them ;  when  we  recognize  the  intense 
humanity  of  the  Bible;  it  acquires  for  us  an  interest 
which  the  impersonal  and  inerrant  book  of  post-Refor- 
mation dogma  could  never  have.  Like  Him  whose 
story  it  records,  the  Bible  is 

"  Most  human  and  yet  most  divine, 
The  flower  of  man  and  God." 


PART   III 

GENERAL   STATUS   OF   CHRISTIAN 
EVIDENCES 


PART  III 

General  Status  of  Qiristian  Evidences 

In  the  period  of  somewhat  more  than  a  century 
since  the  pubhcation  of  the  classical  works  of  Butler 
and  Paley,  there  has  been  a  pretty  radical  change  in 
the  method  of  apologetics.  This  change  has  been  in 
part  necessitated  by  the  change  in  the  prevalent  form 
of  unbelief.  In  the  eighteenth  century  the  prevalent 
form  of  unbelief,  at  least  in  England,  was  deism ;  and 
the  great  defenders  of  Christian  faith  shaped  their 
arguments  with  reference  to  the  position  of  their  an- 
tagonists. The  whole  argument,  for  instance,  of  But- 
ler's "Analogy"  is  that  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
believing  in  the  divine  authorship  of  Christianity  are 
not  other  in  kind  nor  greater  in  degree  than  the  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  believing  in  the  divine  authorship 
of  nature.  Accordingly,  presuming  that  his  readers 
were  ready  to  believe  in  a  divine  Author  of  nature,  he 
called  upon  them  to  believe  in  a  divine  Author  of 
Christianity.  Very  different  is  the  prevalent  phase  of 
unbelief  to-day.  In  the  thought  of  this  age  deism  is 
thoroughly  discredited.  No  religious  or  philosophic 
system  ever  paid  so  poor  interest  on  the  investment  of 
faith  required  for  its  acceptance  as  deism.     If  a  man 

393 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

is  able  to  stretch  his  faith  so  far  beyond  the  reach  of 
sensuous  experience  or  of  mathematical  demonstration 
as  to  believe  in  a  personal  God,  it  seems  absurdly  fool- 
ish to  forego  the  comfort  and  the  inspiration  which 
lie  in  the  belief  in  a  Heavenly  Father,  and  to  make  his 
personal  God  the  worthless  caput  mortuum  of  deism. 
The  unbelief  of  to-day  refuses  either  to  affirm  or  to 
deny  the  personality  of  the  ground  of  all  existence, 
maintaining  that  the  question  transcends  the  reach  of 
human  faculty,  and  that  the  only  philosophical  attitude 
is  the  holding  of  opinion  in  abeyance.  Agnosticism  is 
the  unbelief  of  to-day;  and  arguments  addressed  to 
the  deist  make  no  impression  upon  the  agnostic. 

But  while,  outside  of  the  pale  of  Christianity,  there 
is  less  disposition  now  than  in  the  eighteenth  century 
to  concede  or  accept  the  existence  of  a  personal  God, 
there  has  been  a  wonderful  change  in  the  attitude  of 
non-Christian  thought  toward  the  person  of  Jesus 
Christ.  A  profound  reverence  for  the  character  of 
Jesus  is  almost  as  characteristic  of  the  heretical  thought 
as  of  the  orthodox  thought  of  our  time.  Compare  the 
scurrilous  blasphemy  of  Paine  with  the  tender  senti- 
mentalism  of  Renan,  and  you  will  find  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  this  change  of  feeling  toward  Jesus.  In 
view  of  this  twofold  change  in  the  character  of  preva- 
lent non-Christian  thought,  it  is  not  strange  that  Chris- 
tian apologists  have  come  to  ask  themselves  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  evidence  of  Christianity  is  not 
stronger  than  the  evidence  of  theism,  and  whether,  in 
arguing  primarily  for  theism  and  appending  Chris- 

394 


Character  of  Eighteenth-Century  Thought 

tianity  thereto  as  a  corollary,  they  have  not  failed  to 
show  the  real  strength  of  the  evidence  of  the  truth 
which  they  have  sought  to  defend. 

But  the  change  in  the  order  and  perspective  of  apolo- 
getics is  not  due  alone  to  the  change  in  the  prevalent 
form  of  disbelief.  It  is  due  chiefly  to  a  change  in  the 
general  character  of  the  thought  of  the  age.  Believers 
and  disbelievers  in  Christianity  float  on  the  same  stream 
of  the  world's  thought,  and  feel  the  impulse  of  the 
same  current.  The  thought  of  the  eighteenth  century 
was  bound  at  all  hazards  to  be  systematic ;  the  thought 
of  to-day  cares  not  whether  it  is  systematic  or  not. 
Eighteenth-century  investigators  were  unwilling  to 
march  into  the  territory  of  the  unknown,  except  in  the 
most  elaborate  and  punctilious  military  order.  More 
recent  investigators  deploy  as  skirmishers,  and  are 
content  if,  by  the  most  irregular  scientific  bushwhack- 
ing, they  can  bring  in  a  few  captive  facts.  Eighteenth- 
century  thought  on  every  subject  aimed  to  lay  down 
first  principles  which  were  axiomatic  or  capable  of 
somewhat  easy  proof,  and  then  to  proceed  to  ulterior 
conclusions  by  a  rigorous  process  of  deduction.  The 
thought  of  to-day  is  chiefly  inductive.  It  conjures  up 
an  hypothesis,  and  tests  it  by  its  coincidence  or  lack 
of  coincidence  with  facts.  Only  exceptionally  are  its 
hypotheses  capable  of  verification  by  some  crucial  ex- 
periment or  observation  which  absolutely  excludes  all 
alternative  opinions.  In  the  vast  majority  of  cases  its 
hypotheses  find  a  provisional  verification  in  that  the 
tout  ensemble  of  phenomena  appear  to  accord  with  the 

395 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

chosen  hypothesis  more  fully  than  with  any  alternative 
one.  It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  this  change  in  in- 
tellectual habit  that  those  sciences  whose  work  is 
largely  mathematical  and  deductive  attained  a  condi- 
tion of  relative  maturity  much  earlier  than  those 
sciences  whose  work  is  mainly  observational  and  in- 
ductive. Newton's  'Trincipia,"  the  epoch-making 
masterpiece  of  deductive  science,  belongs  to  the  close 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  Darwin's  "Origin  of  Spe- 
cies," the  epoch-making  masterpiece  of  inductive  sci- 
ence, belongs  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
This  change  in  the  general  habit  of  thought  of  the 
times  changes  naturally  the  order  and  perspective  of 
apologetics.  Eighteenth-century  apologetics  had  to  be 
systematic  and  consecutive.  It  must  make  theism  the 
fundamental  proposition,  and  proceed  to  build  the  evi- 
dence of  Christian  revelation  upon  the  foundation  of 
theism.  But  the  consecutive  method,  although  per- 
fectly adapted  for  subjects  in  which  demonstration 
is  possible,  is  essentially  ill  adapted  for  subjects  in 
which  the  reasoning  can  be  only  probable.  In  geom- 
etry, we  can  start  with  axioms  which  may  be  accepted 
as  substantially  certain,  and  Proposition  i  may  be  de- 
ductively inferred  from  axioms  and  definitions.  In 
the  demonstration  of  Proposition  2,  we  may  use  Propo- 
sition I,  as  well  as  the  axioms  and  definitions,  and  so 
on  through  the  series.  Essentially  the  same  virtual 
certainty  that  marks  the  axioms  at  the  beginning  is 
carried  forward  to  the  end.  But  this  mode  of  pro- 
cedure is  not  so  effective  in  dealing  with  subjects  where 

396 


Inconsistencies  in  Apologetics 

demonstration  is  impossible.  If  we  have  two  premises, 
the  probabiHty  of  whose  truth  may  be  expressed  in 
each  case  by  the  fraction  f ,  the  resultant  probability 
of  the  conclusion,  on  the  assumption  that  these  prem- 
ises include  all  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  con- 
clusion, has  a  value  of  only  ■^.  If  we  proceed  to  use 
that  conclusion  as  a  premise  for  further  consecutive 
reasoning,  combining  it  with  another  proposition 
which  is  only  probable,  it  is  evident  that  the  force 
of  the  probability  is  further  weakened;  and  thus  the 
probability  is  reduced  at  every  step  until  the  argurnent 
comes  to  be  of  utterly  insignificant  value. 

But  the  traditional  presentation  of  Christian  evi- 
dences was  not  merely  subject  to  the  weakness  that  is 
inherent  in  any  attempt  at  a  consecutive  presentation 
of  evidence  on  a  subject  which  does  not  admit  of 
demonstration.  The  argument  came  to  be  burdened 
with  a  gratuitous  accumulation  of  inconsistencies.  The 
outline  of  procedure  in  apologetics  has,  in  fact,  often 
been  substantially  as  follows: — Proposition  i.  There 
is  a  God,  because  the  religious  intuitions  of  humanity 
affirm  that  there  is  a  God.  Proposition  2.  There  is 
need  of  revelation,  because  the  religious  intuitions  of 
humanity  are  so  conflicting  and  uncertain  that  they  are 
good  for  nothing.  Proposition  3.  Christianity  is  a 
revelation  from  God,  because  the  religious  intuitions 
of  humanity  approve  it.  If  the  student  who  has 
reached  that  stage  in  the  argument  has  any  lingering 
faith  in  either  God  or  man,  it  may  be  matter  for 
thanksgiving. 

397 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

From  a  consecutive,  we  must  turn  to  a  cumulative, 
presentation  of  the  evidence.  Our  apologetic  must 
conform,  not  to  the  consecutive  and  deductive  model 
of  eighteenth-century  thought,  but  to  the  hypothetical 
and  inductive  model  of  present  thought.  The  verifica- 
tion of  belief  must  be  sought,  not  in  a  single  invincible 
line  of  argument,  but  in  the  conformity  of  the  belief 
to  an  assemblage  of  multitudinous  phenomena — in  the 
convergence  of  lines  of  evidence  drawn  from  different 
and  apparently  unconnected  classes  of  facts.  It  was 
remarked  long  ago  by  Lord  Bacon  that  the  confirma- 
tion of  scientific  theories  depends  upon  the  mutual  co- 
herence and  adaptation  of  their  parts,  whereby  they 
sustain  each  other  like  the  parts  of  an  arch  or  dome.* 
No  finer  example  of  this  dome  of  hypothesis  is  afforded 
in  the  history  of  human  thought  than  in  the  case  of 
that  theory  of  evolution  whose  discovery  and  verifica- 
tion was  the  great  intellectual  achievement  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Do  we  believe  in  evolution  because 
organs  appropriated  to  different  uses  may  yet  be  homol- 
ogous in  structure?  or  because  the  bodies  of  animals 
and  plants  are  full  of  rudimentary  organs?  or  because 
the  successive  stages  of  development  of  the  embryo 
are  in  large  degree  approximate  recapitulations  of  the 
series  of  earlier  and  lower  species  ?  or  because  the  geo- 
logical record  shows  in  successive  ages  a  gradual  ex- 
pansion of  organic  types,  a  progressive  ascent  to  forms 
of  higher  grade,  and  a  gradual  approximation  to  the 

*  Theoriarum  vires,  arcta  et  quasi  se  mutuo  sustinente  partium  adapta- 
tione^  gua  quasi  in  orbem  cohcerent,  firmantur. 

398 


Convergent  Lines  of  Evidence 

fauna  and  flora  of  to-day?  or  because  successive  faunas 
and  floras  in  the  same  region  reveal  a  similarity  which 
suggests  community  of  origin?  or  because  the  bound- 
ary lines  of  all  groups  recognized  in  zoological  and 
botanical  classification  grow  more  indefinite  with  in- 
creasing knowledge  ?  No.  Not  one  of  these  classes  of 
facts  would  be  sufficient  to  establish  a  reasonable 
probability  for  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  The  proba- 
bility of  the  doctrine  lies  precisely  in  the  fact  that  all 
these  different  and  independent  lines  of  argument  con- 
verge to  one  conclusion — that  the  idea  of  evolution 
gives  an  intelligible  and  unitary  significance  to  all  these 
classes  of  facts  which  are  otherwise  unconnected  and 
meaningless.  In  like  cumulative  form  must  be  ex- 
hibited the  convergence  of  evidence  toward  the  truth 
of  Christianity.  Nature,  with  its  myriad  adaptations 
and  its  all-pervading  order  and  law,  its  omnipresent 
aspect  of  intellectuality;  man,  with  his  inextinguish- 
able sense  of  responsibility  and  his  irrepressible  reli- 
gious aspirations ;  the  historic  Jesus,  with  his  stainless 
life  and  his  unparalleled  teaching;  Christianity,  with 
its  doctrines  so  sublime,  so  comforting,  and  so  en- 
nobling; Christendom,  with  its  vast  philanthropies 
and  its  new  type  of  civilization — these  constitute  an 
ensemble  of  facts  which  must  be  rationally  accounted 
for.  The  idea  of  a  Heavenly  Father  revealed  in  Christ 
Jesus  gives  to  them  all  an  intelligible  and  unitary 
significance. 

The  real  evidence,  then,  for  Christianity  is  not  found 
in  any  one  line  of  argument,  but  in  the  convergence 

399 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

of  all  lines.  The  dome  rests,  not  on  one  pillar,  but  on 
many  pillars.  But,  although  the  dome  must  be  sup- 
ported on  every  side,  and  its  strength  is  dependent  upon 
the  many-sidedness  of  its  support,  it  is  not  necessary 
that  all  the  pillars  should  be  equally  strong,  or  should 
sustain  equal  portions  of  the  weight  of  the  structure. 
And,  while  the  cogency  of  Christian  evidence  consists 
in  the  convergence  of  various  lines  of  evidence,  it  does 
not  necessarily  follow  that  those  various  lines  of 
evidence  are  equally  important.  Nor  will  the  com- 
parative importance  of  different  lines  of  evidence  be 
the  same  in  different  ages. 

Of  the  various  convergent  lines  of  evidence,  there 
are  two  which  are  especially  impressive  to  the  thought 
of  the  present  age.  One  of  these  is  found  in  the  effects 
of  Christianity.  And  here  we  come  to  formulate  the 
unconscious  logic  of  the  faith  in  Christianity  which  for 
most  of  us  is  associated  with  the  tenderest  memories 
of  childhood.  The  noble  lives  and  characters  of  those 
who  in  our  childhood  were  nearest  and  dearest  to  us, 
were  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  that  religion  which  ex- 
pressed itself  in  life  and  character.  It  is  in  this  view 
an  inspiring  thought  that  the  duty  of  the  Church  is 
not  merely  to  expound,  but  to  make,  the  evidence  of 
Christianity.  The  world  beholds  the  daily  miracle  of 
souls  dead  in  sin  rising  into  the  life  of  goodness,  and, 
as  in  the  ancient  days,  the  multitudes  glorify  God,  who 
has  given  such  power  unto  men.* 

But,   of  all   evidences   of   Christianity,   to  modern 

*Matt.,  ix,  8. 

400 


Christ  the  Evidence  of  Christianity 

thought  the  most  impressive  is  found  in  the  person- 
ality of  Jesus  Christ.  Biblical  criticism,  while  it  has 
contradicted  many  traditional  opinions  in  regard  to 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  books  of  the  Bible,  has 
pretty  thoroughly  established  the  early  date  of  enough 
of  the  New  Testament  to  show  that  the  portrait  of 
Jesus  is  a  contemporary  portrait.  The  affidavits  of 
the  original  witnesses  are  certified  by  the  notarial  seal 
of  modern  criticism.  The  Jesus  whose  unique  charac- 
ter was  an  oasis  of  heaven  in  the  sin-blasted  desert  of 
earth — teacher  of  a  morality  unapproached  in  its  stern 
purity,  yet  friend  of  sinners — incarnation  of  self-sacri- 
fice, yet  free  from  taint  of  asceticism  or  stoicism — 
bearing  in  sympathetic  woe  the  burden  of  a  world's 
sin,  yet  making  the  wedding  feast  more  glad  by  his 
presence,  and  condescending  in  his  last  agony  to  ask 
the  faint  alleviation  of  a  drink  to  moisten  lips  and 
tongue — brave,  patient,  tender  to  all,  sympathizing  with 
the  sorrows  of  every  human  soul,  though  none  could 
sympathize  with  him — was  no  dream  that  tender  and 
saintly  souls  dreamed  when  the  simple  outlines  of  fact 
had  grown  dim  in  tradition,  but  was  painted  from  life. 
Through  the  historic  Jesus  we  are  led  to  faith  in  the 
divine  Christ.  Christ  himself  is  not  only  the  inspira- 
tion of  Christian  life  and  the  center  of  Christian 
dogma,  but  also  the  foundation  of  Christian  apolo- 
getics. "Ye  believe  in  God,  believe  also  in  me,"  said 
the  Master  to  his  perplexed,  doubting,  sorrowing  dis- 
ciples, while  he  yet  waited  for  the  glorification  which 
could  come  only  through  the  cross  and  the  sepulcher. 

401 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

Enthroned  by  the  reverent  love  of  humanity,  inspiring 
the  world's  highest  thought  and  noblest  life,  Christ 
might  say  to  the  doubters  of  our  age,  "Ye  believe  in 
me,  believe  also  in  God." 

And  now  we  are  prepared  to  answer  the  question 
which  we  proposed  to  ourselves  in  the  beginning  of 
our  discussion — can  the  faith  which  first  breathed 
in  the  unscientific  atmosphere  of  the  first  century 
survive  in  the  scientific  atmosphere  of  the  twentieth 
century  ? 

We  have  traced  the  history  of  the  great  discoveries 
which  have  created  the  new  intellectual  atmosphere. 
The  flat  earth  has  rolled  itself  into  a  spheroid.  The  once 
steadfast  earth  spins  in  its  orbit  around  a  central  sun. 
The  heavenly  bodies  have  stretched  apart  into  measure- 
less distances.  The  six  thousand  years  of  tradition 
have  expanded  into  a  duration  immense  if  not  eternal. 
Man  himself,  though  his  duration  is  but  a  moment  in 
comparison  with  that  of  the  universe,  claims  an  an- 
tiquity far  beyond  the  traditional  limit.  The  chaotic 
manifoldness  of  nature  has  given  place  to  a  threefold 
unity — a  unity  of  substance,  a  unity  of  force,  and  a 
unity  of  process.  All  changes  of  matter,  lifeless  and 
living  alike,  are  the  expression  of  transformations  of 
a  stock  of  energy  which  suffers  neither  addition  nor 
subtraction.  From  the  nebula  to  man  we  find  no 
break  in  the  continuity  of  evolution.  Meteors  have 
clustered  into  suns  and  planets.  The  incandescent  sur- 
face of  the  globe  has  wrinkled  into  continents  and 
oceans.     The  simplest  forms  of  life  have  developed  in 

402 


Faith  Survives  in  an  Age  of  Science 

endless  ramification  into  the  varied  species  of  plants 
and  animals,  till  animal  life  has  grown  divine  in  man 
himself. 

And  we  have  recognized  that  these  changes  in  our 
thought  of  the  universe  cannot  but  work  correspond- 
ing changes  in  our  thought  of  God  and  of  his  revela- 
tion to  man.  We  have  ceased  to  look  to  the  Bible  for 
a  revelation  of  the  plan  and  history  of  the  universe,  or 
to  regard  the  Bible  as  inerrant.  The  "carpenter  God" 
has  vanished  from  a  universe  which  we  have  come  to 
regard  as  a  growth  and  not  as  a  building.  The  meta- 
physical dogma  of  the  duality  of  essence  in  human 
nature  has  been  rendered  uncertain  by  the  tendencies 
of  biological  science.  Evolutionary  anthropology  must 
regard  the  fall  of  man  as  potential  rather  than  actual. 
The  tendencies  of  scientific  thought  have  compelled  us 
to  reject  as  unhistoric  some  of  the  Biblical  narratives  of 
miracle,  and  to  regard  others  as  more  or  less  doubtful. 

Yet  these  changes  of  belief  involve  the  abandonment 
of  no  essential  doctrine  of  Christianity.  A  Heavenly 
Father,  a  risen  Saviour,  an  inspired  and  inspiring 
Bible,  an  immortal  hope,  are  still  ours. 

The  question  which  we  have  asked  is  one  which 
thoughtful  men  are  bound  to  ask.  However  tender 
and  sacred  the  memories  with  which  Christian  faith 
is  associated,  intellectual  honesty  forbids  the  student 
to  retain  that  faith,  unless  he  can  find  satisfactory 
reasons  for  it.  Hence  each  generation  must  have  its 
own  apologetic.  If  Christianity  is  to  be  the  faith  of 
all  ages,  its  evidences  must  be  capable  of  being  so 

403 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

presented  as  to  establish  a  probability  of  its  truth  for 
each  age,  as  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  knowledge  and 
the  dominant  ideas  of  that  age.  But  men  who  are  not 
students  of  science  and  philosophy  behold  a  practical 
reconciliation  of  scientific  and  religious  thought  work- 
ing itself  out  in  the  life  of  mankind.  The  close  of 
the  nineteenth  century  was  marked  by  the  acceptance 
of  the  theories  of  conservation  of  energy  and  organic 
evolution,  not  as  esoteric  doctrines  of  scientific  men, 
but  as  the  popular  belief  of  the  masses.  Yet  it  is 
equally  certain  that  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century 
was  marked  by  a  decided  movement  in  the  world  of 
thought  towards  the  revival  and  strengthening  of  the- 
istic  and  Christian  faith.  The  generation  in  which  we 
live — the  generation  which  has  accepted  the  doctrines 
of  modern  science — is  more  strongly  influenced  by  the 
teachings  of  Christianity  than  any  previous  genera- 
tion. Never  has  there  been  a  time  when  the  professed 
believers  in  Christianity  were  so  numerous,  or  when 
the  individual  and  the  social  life  of  mankind  was  so 
largely  controlled  by  the  spirit  of  Christianity.  And 
multitudes  of  men  and  women  find  that  the  acceptance 
of  scientific  teachings  in  no  wise  disturbs  their  personal 
religious  life.  As  men  practically  ceased  to  feel  their 
Christian  faith  disturbed  by  the  Copernican  astronomy 
and  by  the  geological  doctrine  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
earth,  so  men  are  practically  ceasing,  whether  logically 
or  illogically,  to  feel  their  Christian  faith  disturbed  by 
the  scientific  discoveries  which  marked  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century. 

404 


Christianity  Adapted  to  All  Humanity 

The  history  of  the  survival  of  Christianity  through 
all  the  changes  of  intellectual  environment  is  most  im- 
pressive. Other  religions  have  found  a  congenial  soil 
in  a  particular  nation,  age,  or  stage  of  intellectual  cul- 
ture; and  have  perished,  or  led  a  feeble,  exotic  life, 
beyond  their  natural  boundaries.  Christianity,  by  rea- 
son of  its  adaptation  to  universal  humanity,  thrives  in 
every  land  and  every  age.  The  religion  which  sprang 
from  the  bosom  of  a  nomad  tribe  of  Asia  has  become 
the  religion  of  the  most  enlightened  nations  of  Europe. 
The  princes  of  European  intellect  have  worshiped  the 
God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob.  Like  its  great 
apostle,  Christianity  is  "made  all  things  to  all  men," 
that  it  may  "by  all  means  save  some."  In  an  age  when 
men  were  capable  only  of  grossly  anthropomorphic 
conceptions  of  Deity,  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  reva- 
lations  (which  were  Christianity  in  anticipation)  glo- 
rified that  anthropomorphism  with  a  moral  dignity  to 
which  the  mythology  of  classic  lands  made  no  ap- 
proach. In  an  age  when  primitive  anthropomorphic 
conceptions  give  way  to  those  of  science,  Christianity 
touches  the  cold,  majestic  marble  of  law,  and  it  thrills 
and  pulsates  with  divine  love.  The  world  outgrows 
other  religions ;  it  grows  in  Christianity. 

The  history  contains  a  prophecy.  The  fact  that,  in 
changing  environment,  Christianity  has  not  become  ex- 
tinct, but  has  varied  and  become  adapted,  seems  to 
show  that  it  possesses  that  plasticity — that  power  of 
adaptation  to  new  environment — which  entitles  an  or- 
ganism  to   be  preserved  by   natural   selection.    The 

405 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

history  suggests  that  Christianity  survives  because  it 
meets  the  moral  needs  of  mankind — because,  whatever 
errors  or  superstitions  may  have  been  Hnked  with  it, 
and  supposed  by  its  foes  or  its  friends  to  be  integral 
parts  of  it,  it  contains  essential  truth.  As  long  as  man 
the  finite  seeks  to  gain  inspiration  from  the  infinite, 
as  long  as  man  the  sinful  seeks  moral  uplifting  by  the 
contemplation  of  the  not  himself  "which  makes  for 
righteousness,"  so  long,  we  may  well  believe,  will  there 
be  need  of  anthropomorphic  symbols  for  the  myste- 
rious Power  "dwelling  in  the  light  which  no  man  can 
approach  unto,  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can  see;" 
and  so  long  the  truest  symbols  to  represent  a  truth 
which,  in  its  real  essence,  transcends  all  human  expres- 
sion and  all  human  thought,  will  be  those  afforded  by 
him  who  taught  the  world  to  say,  "Our  Father  which 
art  in  heaven." 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  no  claim  of  certainty  can  be 
maintained  in  regard  to  Christianity  as  a  system,  or  in 
regard  to  any  particular  doctrine  of  Christianity.  Prob- 
ability is  all  that  can  be  claimed.  But  it  is  well  for  us 
to  remind  ourselves  that  it  is  not  alone  in  religious 
matters  that  we  must  be  guided  by  probability,  and 
must  recognize  certainty  as  unattainable.  Our  discus- 
sion of  the  methods  of  science  and  the  meaning  of 
natural  law*  has  made  it  clear  to  our  minds  that  cer- 
tainty in  natural  science  is  absolutely  unattainable.  We 
cannot  know  that  the  external  universe  has  any  objec- 
tive existence.    Our  whole  system  of  natural  law  may 

*  Page  321. 

406 


Probability  the  Guide  of  Life 

be  but  a  castle  in  the  air.     The  postulate  of  the  uni- 
formity of  nature,  upon  which  all  our  reasoning  is 
founded,  is  itself  utterly  undemonstrable.    If  our  postu- 
late is  admitted,  the  reasoning  that  is  based  upon  it  is 
at  no  step  demonstrative,  and  the  results  can  never  DC    J 
certain.    The  laws  of  nature  which  we  consider  most   I 
thoroughly  verified  may  be  true  only  approximately  / 
and  within  limits.     Nowhere  in  the  whole  system  of  / 
natural  and  physical  science  can  we  find  certainty.         I 
From  this  point  of  view  we  recognize  the  utter  van-j 
ity  of  the  talk  which  is  so  frequently  heard,  in  which  thd 
solid  facts  of  science  are  contrasted  with  the  iridescent! 
dreams  of  religion,  and  religious  men  are  reproached 
for  their  folly  in  making  undemonstrable  beliefs  the 
basis  of  their  plans  of  life.    It  is  well  for  us  to  remind 
ourselves  how  very  narrow  are  the  limits  within  which 
certainty  is  attainable.     The  laws  of  thought  are  cer- 
tain.    We  may  imagine  a  universe  where  space  has 
more  or  less  than  three  dimensions;    but  we  cannot 
imagine  a  universe  where  a  thing  can  be  and  not  be 
at  the  same  time.    Certain,  too,  for  each  individual,  is 
his  present  state  of  consciousness.     That  is  the  one 
fact  which  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  doubt.     But, 
beyond  the  present  state  of  consciousness  and  the  laws 
of  thought,  all  beliefs  can  be  only  in  greater  or  less 
degree  probable.    Our  personal  identity,  the  reliability 
of  memory  and  of  mental  faculties  in  general,  the  ex- 
istence of  the  external  world,  may  all  be  denied  without 
self-contradiction.     Alike  in  the  common  affairs  of 
daily  life,   in  our  scientific  speculations,   and   in  the 

407 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

sphere  of  morals  and  religion,  we  base,  upon  postulates 
which  are  undemonstrable,  conclusions  which  more  or 
less  probably  are  more  or  less  close  approximations 
to  the  truth.  And  in  all  these  spheres  we  act  upon 
such  beliefs  as  if  they  were  certainly  true.  No  one 
refuses  to  eat  his  dinner  because  he  doubts  the  exist- 
ence of  the  external  world;  no  one  refuses  to  accept 
payment  of  a  debt  because  he  doubts  his  personal  iden- 
tity or  the  validity  of  memory.  We  take  medicine 
when  we  are  ill,  though  we  never  can  be  sure  that  it 
will  do  us  good.  We  build  bridges,  though  we  never 
can  be  sure  that  they  will  bear  the  loads  that  will  be 
put  upon  them.  We  launch  ships,  though  we  never 
can  be  sure  that  they  will  reach  their  destined  port. 
We  advocate  social  and  political  reforms,  though  we 
never  can  be  sure  that  the  measures  which  we  advocate 
will  be  useful.  As  Locke  has  well  said,  **He  that  will 
not  stir  uritil  he  infallibly  knows  that  the  business  he 
goes  about  will  succeed,  will  have  but  little  else  to  do 
but  to  sit  still  and  perish."*  In  like  manner,  it  is  rea- 
sonable to  regulate  our  lives  in  accordance  with  a  sense 
of  responsibility  to  a  God  whose  existence  we  can 
never  demonstrate ;  in  accordance  with  an  expectation 
of  a  future  life  of  which  we  can  have  no  assurance 
until  each  one  for  himself  is  called  to  try  the  awful 
alternative  of  extinction  or  immortality;  and  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  a  religion 
for  no  article  of  whose  creed  we  can  claim  more  than 

*  Quoted  {North  American  Review^  vol.  clxx,  p.  582)  by  F.  S.  Hoffman,  in 
article  on  The  Scientific  Method  in  Theology. 

408 


Theoretical  Doubt  and  Practical  Faith 

that  it  is  more  or  less  probably  a  more  or  less  close 
approximation  to  the  truth.  Through  a  theoretical 
skepticism  may  lie  our  path  to  an  intelligent  practical 
faith.  From  the  clear  recognition  of  the  extremely 
narrow  limits  within  which  certitude  is  attainable,  we 
may  learn  the  rationality  and  the  wisdom  of  acting 
upon  beliefs  which  are  merely  probable,  and  acting 
with  an  earnestness  proportionate  to  the  importance  of 
the  interests  involved.  We  may  learn  to  walk  by  faith 
more  steadily,  by  perceiving  that,  in  this  universe  in 
which  we  live,  only  he  who  is  willing  to  walk  by  faith 
can  walk  at  all. 

The  compatibility  of  a  theoretical  skepticism  with 
a  practical  faith  seems  to  me  the  most  important  prac- 
tical lesson  from  this  discussion.  "What  I  most  crave 
to  see,"  said  Thomas  Arnold,  "and  what  still  seems 
to  me  no  impossible  dream,  is  inquiry  and  belief  going 
together."  In  so  far  as  that  aspiration  finds  its  fulfil- 
ment in  the  individual  and  in  the  church,  we  shall  be 
saved  alike  from  the  dogmatism  that  resists  all  prog- 
ress of  thought,  and  from  the  skepticism  that  dooms 
life  to  aimlessness  and  helplessness.  In  the  individual 
and  in  the  church,  the  creed  which  is  in  process  of 
formation  may  serve  at  every  stage  the  purpose  of  a 
vigorous  religious  life.  The  engineer  may  rebuild  a 
railroad  bridge  without  stopping  the  running  of  trains. 
Piece  by  piece,  the  old  structure  is  replaced  by  a  new 
and  stronger  one;  and  construction  keeps  pace  with 
removal.  A  still  better  illustration  may  be  found  in 
the  growth  of  the  body;   for  our  religious  beliefs  are 

409 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

not  a  mechanical  construction  but  a  living  growth.  The 
gristly  skeleton  of  childhood  serves  the  purpose  of 
the  child's  life,  but  serves  also  as  the  mold  in  which 
is  developed  the  bony  skeleton  of  manhood.  Every 
organ  is  at  once  a  machine  for  accomplishing  the  pur- 
poses of  the  present  life,  and  a  matrix  in  which  is 
developed  the  corresponding  organ  which  shall  be  fitted 
for  the  larger  work  of  years  to  come.  So  our  child- 
hood's conceptions  of  truth,  imperfect  as  they  are, 
serve  to  guide  our  child  life,  but  serve  also  as  the 
matrix  in  which  are  developed  the  larger  conceptions 
of  our  manhood.  In  this  growth  of  individual  thought, 
as  in  the  progress  of  the  church  at  large,  there  is  the 
continuity  of  organic  development.  Each  stage,  alike 
of  individual  and  of  collective  religious  life,  is  in  vital 
connection  with  the  past  and  the  future.  And  so,  we 
may  reasonably  hope,  when  at  last  that  great  meta- 
morphosis comes  to  us,  and  we  pass  from  this  embryo 
state  of  existence  to  the  full  life  of  that  other  world, 
there  will  still  be  no  break  in  the  continuity  of  spiritual 
life.  We  shall  be  born  into  the  glories  of  that  heavenly 
world  with  eyes  already  prepared  for  its  beatific  vision. 
It  is  obvious  that  we  cannot  hope  in  the  near  future 
to  define  the  final  form  of  Christian  faith.  The  charac- 
teristic conceptions  of  modern  science,  and  particularly 
the  fruitful  idea  of  evolution,  are  so  novel  that  the 
human  mind  has  not  yet  fully  comprehended  their  sig- 
nificance and  traced  out  all  their  bearings.  It  may  or 
may  not  be  within  the  power  of  the  human  intellect 
sometime  to  produce  a  complete  and  consistent  the- 

410 


The  Return  to  Faith 

istic  evolutionary  philosophy.  Certainly  such  an  at- 
tempt, in  the  present  state  of  knowledge  and  thought, 
would  be  premature.  I  have  not  attempted  in  this  dis- 
cussion a  final  delimitation  of  the  territories  of  science 
and  faith.  I  have  sought  only  to  define  a  modus 
vivendi  which  may  secure  peace  between  the  two 
realms  while  surveys  along  their  frontier  are  in  prog- 
ress. The  solutions  which  have  been  proposed  for 
the  problems  of  religious  thought  in  our  age  are  only 
provisional.  "We  know  in  part,  and  we  prophesy  in 
part."  But,  as  we  have  seen,  our  partial  knowledge 
justifies  the  prophetic  hope  that  no  scientific  discovery 
will  contradict  the  essence  of  Christianity,  and  that 
the  end  of  all  questioning  will  be  the  reestablishment 
of  faith.  To  me  it  seems  unmistakable  that  our  age 
of  bold  investigation,  of  truth  discovered  too  fast  to 
be  understood  and  coordinated,  of  doubt  and  unrest 
and  agonized  questioning,  but  of  moral  earnestness 
and  of  loyalty  to  truth,  is  ending  in  a  return  to 
faith.*  The  pathetic  story  of  Romanes,  as  told  in  his 
"Thoughts  on  Religion" — his  twenty  years  of  wander- 
ing in  the  wilderness  of  unbelief,  and  his  Pisgah  vision 
of  the  land  of  promise — is  profoundly  interesting  as 
the  experience  of  one  human  soul ;  but  to  me  it  seems 
yet  more  impressive  as  a  type  of  the  intellectual  and 
spiritual  life  of  the  age  which  is  passing  away.  "At 
evening  time  it  shall  be  light."  For  the  scientific  ques- 
tions of  our  age  and  of  all  ages  touch  not  the  central 

*  Van  Dyke,  77te  Gospel  /or  an  Age  of  Doubt,  ch.  i;  Armstrong;,  The  Re- 
turn to  Faith,  in  Methodist  Review,  vol.  Ixxviii,  p.  66 ;  Armstrong,  Transi- 
tional Eras  in  Thought^  pp.  107-131,  239-242. 

411 


General  Status  of  Christian  Evidences 

truth  of  Christianity,  "that  God  was  in  Christ,  recon- 
ciHng  the  world  unto  himself."*  The  inarticulate  cry 
of  universal  humanity — 

"An  infant  crying  in  the  night" — 

finds  its  interpretation  and  its  answer  in  Him  through 
whom  we  see  the  Father.  And  to  Him — "the  same 
yesterday  and  to-day  and  forever" — the  laboring  and 
heavy-laden  bring  their  burdens  of  doubt  and  question, 
as  of  sorrow  and  sin,  and  find  rest  unto  their  souls. 

*II  Cor.,  V,  19. 
412 


INDEX 


Abraham,  beginning  of  reliable 
history  in  Bible,  122. 
life  of,  not  marked  by  mir- 
acle, 373. 

Abyssal  zone,  life  of,  247,  248. 

Acquired  characters,  inherit- 
ance of,  214. 

Adam,  Fall  of.    See  Fall. 

Agnosticism,  394. 

Akkas,  represented  on  Egyp- 
tian monuments,  78. 

Alexandria,  Museum  of,  4. 

Almagest,  the,  19. 

Alphonso  X  of  Castile,  22. 

Alpine  plants  and  insects,  193, 

Alps,  fossil  shells  on,  proof  of 
Deluge,  90. 

Amphioxus,  182. 

Analogy,  provisional  beliefs 
may  be  based  on,  249,  315. 

Ancon  sheep,  224. 

Animal  body,  a  machine,  138. 

Animals,  consciousness  of,  270. 

Animals  and  plants,  no  demar- 
cation between,  273. 

Animism,  301. 

Antediluvians,  longevity  of, 
116. 

Anthropology,  affected  by  the- 
ory of  evolution,  256. 

Anthropomorphism,  lower  and 
higher,  309. 
universal  in  religion,  309,  320, 

406. 
weakness  of,  310. 

Anthropomorphism  and  pan- 
theism, limits  of  idea  of 
God,  320. 

Antiquity  of  man,  55. 


Antiquity  of  man,  relation  of, 
to  Biblical  chronology,  114. 

Antlers  of  deer,  relation  of,  to 
sexual   selection,  235. 

Ape  and  man,  gradations  be- 
tween, 257. 

Apologetics.  See  Christian  evi- 
dences. 

Argument   from   design,   303. 

Aristotle,  4,  15,  42. 

Armstrong,  A.  C,  411. 

Arnold,  Sir  Edwin,  358. 
Thomas,  409. 

Arouet,  F.  M.    See  Voltaire. 

Ascension  of  Jesus.     See  Jesus. 

Astronomy,  evolution  in,  142. 
history  of,  15. 
theological  bearings  of,  37. 

Asvaghosha  Bodhisattva,  359. 

Atmosphere,  solid  particles  in, 
246. 

Atoms,   manufactured  articles, 
316. 
not  exactly  alike,  317. 
product  of  evolution,  315. 

Atwater,  W.  O.,  139. 

Atwater-Rosa  calorimeter,  the, 

139. 
Augustine,  Saint,  84,  254. 
Australia,  fauna  of,  195. 
Avebury,  Lord,  57. 

Babylonian  civilization,  antiq- 
uity of,  80. 

Babylonian  mythology,  rela- 
tion of,  to  Hebrew  tradi- 
tion, 113. 

Bacon,  Francis,  Viscount  Saint 
Albans,  131,  342,  398. 


413 


Index 


Bacteria,  in  atmosphere,  246. 
spontaneous    generation    of, 
242. 
Bacteriology,  contributions  of, 
to   hygiene   and   medicine, 
247. 
Baldwin,  J.  M.,  220,  221,  264. 
Ball,  Sir  Robert  S.,  142. 
Baronius,  Cesare,  yi- 
Bartol,  C.  A.,  345. 
Bateson,  William,  225. 
Bathybius,  248. 
Beetles,  flightless,  180. 
Benedict,  F.  G.,   139. 
Bennett,  W.  H.,  375. 
Bible,  a  record  of  revelation, 
385. 
authority  of,  390. 
chronology    of.    See    Chro- 
nology, 
church  existed  before,  385. 
describes     nature     phenom- 
enally, 105. 
errors  in,  389. 
inerrancy    of,    85,    112,    116, 

255,  389. 
inspiration  of,  85,  388. 
language    of,    not    technical, 

38. 
legendary   elements    in,   362, 

374. 

Biblical  philosophy,  275. 

Biology,  evolution  in,  159. 
tends  toward  monism,  276. 

Blue  of  the  sky,  the,  246. 

Boltzmann,   Ludwig,  ZZ- 

Bostrichopus  antiquus,  204. 

Botanical   classification,   indefi- 
niteness  of,  196. 

Boucher     de     Crevecceur     de 
Perthes,  J.,  56. 

Brahe,  Tycho,  28. 

Brain,  changes  in.    See  Cere- 
bral changes. 

Branchial  arches  and  slits,  184. 

Breeds,  fertility  of  crosses  be- 
tween, 230. 

Brewster,  Sir  David,  370. 

Brixham  Cave,  relics  in,  59. 


Bronze,  Age  of,  62, 
Brooks,  W.  K.,  205,  248. 
Brutes,  consciousness  of,  270. 
Buddha,  358. 
Buffon,   G.   L.   L.,   Comte   de, 

143,  211,  212. 
Butler,    Samuel,    Bishop,    388, 

393. 

Calculus,  invention  of,  29. 

Calvin,  John,  86. 

Cambrian  fauna,  the,  201,  205. 

Carbon  dioxide,  effect  of,  on 
climate,  ^2^. 

Carboniferous  era,  sunbeams 
of,  furnish  heat  and  light, 
140. 

Carpenter,  W.  B.,  137,  320,  380. 

Catastrophism,  51,  55,  93,  153, 
157- 

Causality,  principle  of,  293. 

Cause,  idea  of,  derived  from 
volition,  296,  301. 

Cells,  evolution  of,  251. 
nuclear  apparatus  of,  250. 

Centaur,  illustration  of  im- 
probability of  miracle,  356, 

359- 

Century,  First,  etc.  See  First 
Century,  etc. 

Cerebral  and  psychical  changes, 
correlated,  262. 
disparate,  264,  294. 

Cerebral  changes  in  mental  ac- 
tion, 140. 

Certainty,  narrow  limits  of, 
406. 

Chamberlin,  T.  C,  73,  152. 

Chaos,  preceding  the  week  of 
creation,  92. 

Character,      development      of, 
300. 
prerogative  of  man,  311. 

Characters,  acquired,  inherit- 
ance of,  214. 

Chemistry  of  carbon  com- 
pounds, 250. 

China,  antiquity  of  civilization 
in,  80. 


414 


Index 


China,  traditions  of  deluge  in, 

120,    121. 

Christ,   evidence  of  Christian- 
ity, 401, 

reconciliation    of  philosophy 
and  faith,  321. 
Christian  civilization  abolishes 

natural  selection,  237. 
Christian  evidences,  changes  in 
method  of,  393,  396. 

changes    in    relative    impor- 
tance of,  384,  400. 

cumulative    presentation    of, 
398. 

general  status  of,  391. 

inconsistencies   in,   397. 

only  probable,  406. 

stronger    than    evidences    of 
theism,  394. 
Christian  Scientists,  381. 
Christianity,   adaptation  of,  to 
universal  humanity,  405. 

authenticated     by     miracles, 
351,  382. 

early  struggles  of,  i. 

evidential  value  of  effects  of, 
400. 

final  form  of,  cannot  be  pre- 
dicted, 410. 

introduction  of,  attended  by 
greatest  series  of  miracles, 

373. 
status  of  certain  doctrines  of, 

287. 
survival    of,    amid    changing 

opinions,  39,  405. 
teaches   embodied  immortal- 
ity, 279. 
undemonstrable,  406. 
Chronology  of  Bible,  data  of, 
114. 
unreliable,  116. 
Circumnavigation  of  globe,  16, 
Civilization    abolishes    natural 

selection,  237. 
Clerk-Maxwell,     James.      See 

Maxwell. 
Clive,  Robert,  Lord,  340. 
Columbus,  Christopher,  16. 


Combustion,  theories  of,  126. 
Conn,    H.    W.,    160,   214,    223, 

233- 
Conscience,  evolution  of,  277. 
Consciousness,  in  animals,  270. 
in  plants,  274. 

states     of.      See     Psychical 
states. 
Conservation  of  energy,  9,  125, 

135. 
in  living  bodies,  136. 
not  the  only  mode  of  causa- 
tion in  nature,  296. 
relation    of,    to    freedom    of 
will,  293. 
Constantine,  3. 
Cooke,  J.  P.,  15. 
Cope,  E.  D.,  214. 
Copernican  theory,  23. 
supposed    to    contradict    the 
Bible,  35. 
Copernicus,  23,  26,  2>(>- ^ 
Corinthians,      authenticity     of 

First  Epistle  to,  361. 
Courtship  in  animals,  236. 
Cowper,  William,  91. 
Cranial    capacity   of  men    and 

apes,  258. 
Creation,    an    eternal    process, 
318. 
Biblical  theory  of,  89. 
days  of,  symbolic,  96. 
mediate  and  immediate,  254. 
method  of,  not  likely  to  be 

revealed,  105. 
traditional  date  of,  115. 
two  narratives  of,  in  Gene- 
sis, 81. 
Creationism,  260. 
compatible     with     evolution, 
268. 
Criticism   of   New  Testament, 
constructive      results      of, 
401. 
Croll,  James,  70. 
Crookes,  Sir  William,  318. 
Crum,  W.  E.,  79. 
Cure  of  disease  by  mental  im- 
pressions, 381. 

15 


Index 


Curves,  as  illustrating  idea  ot 

law,  328. 
Cuvier,    Georges,    Baron,    49, 

163. 

Dana,  J.  D.,  loi,  159. 
Darwin,  Charles,  159,  163,  202, 

209,  210,  213,  215,  224,  227, 

232,  234,  235,  388. 
Darwin,  G.  H.,  150,  233. 
Darwinians,  213. 
Darwin's    Origin    of    Species, 

controversy  over,  252. 
David,  life  of,  not  marked  by 

miracle,  373. 
Davy,  Sir  Humphry,  133. 
Deductive    sciences,    developed 

earlier  than  inductive,  396. 
Deer,  antlers  of,  225,  235. 
Deferent  of  a  planet,  20. 
Deism,  Z2>7,  393- 
Deluge,    Noachian.    See   Noa- 

chian  Deluge, 
traditions  of,   120. 
Demonstrative   reasoning  may 

be  consecutive,  396. 
Descartes,  Rene,  270. 
Design,  argument   from,  303. 
Disease   cured  by   mental   im- 
pressions, 381. 
Domestic  animals,  in  neolithic 

age,  65. 
instincts  in,  214. 
Domestic   virtues,    evolved   by 

natural  selection,  279, 
Donaldson,  H.  H.,  140. 
Driver,  S.  R.,  Z77. 
Drummond,    Henry,    160,    251, 

278. 
Dualism,  265,  266. 
compatible     with     evolution, 

268. 
quasi-monistic  phases  of,  269. 
relation  of,  to  ethics  and  re- 
ligion, 267,  2^7,  279. 
Dubois,  Eugene,  77,  258. 

Earth,  sphericity  of,  15, 
Eccentricity   of    earth's    orbit, 


relation  of,  to  Glacial  cli- 
mate, 70. 

Eden,  story  of,  not  historic, 
112,  256. 

Egyptian  civilization,  antiquity 
of,  79- 

Egyptian  monuments  show  dif- 
ferent races  of  men,  77. 

Eighteenth  -  century  thought, 
characteristics  of,  395. 

Elephant,  breeding  of,  170. 

Elephas  primigenius.  See  Mam- 
moth. 

Elevation  of  land,  effect  of,  on 
climate,  73. 

Elijah  and  Elisha,  miracles  of, 

Z7Z' 
Elliptical    form    of    planetary 

orbits,  27. 
Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  narra- 
tives, differences  of,  82. 
Embryology,  181. 
Embryonic    stages    of    higher 
animals     resemble     lower 
animals,   183. 
Embryos,  vertebrate,   185. 
Energy,   conservation  of.    See 

Conservation. 
Environment,  effect  of,  in  evo- 
lution, 211. 
Epicycles,  20,  24. 
Ethical   distinctions  not  inval- 
idated by  evolution,  277. 
Ethics,  founded  on  psychology, 

not  on  ontology,  277. 
Evidences  of  Christianity.    See 

Christian    evidences. 
Evolution,  9,  142. 
anticipations  of,  7,  162.  < 
astronomical,   142. 
biological,  159. 
does    not    invalidate    ethical 

distinctions,  277. 
evidences  of  origin  of   spe- 
cies by,  176,  398. 
geological,  153. 
in  individual  life,  162. 
modifies  argument  from  de- 
sign, 304, 
16 


Index 


Evolution,  not  atheistic,  254. 
philosophic  bearings  of,  not 
yet     coYnprehended,      276, 
410. 
progress      of,      intermittent, 

174,  208. 
tends    toward    monism,   268, 

276. 
the,  of  heredity,  233. 
theotogical  bearings  of,  251, 
why     offensive     to     popular 
theology,  314. 

Evolutionary  origin  of  life, 
supported  only  by  analogy, 
249. 

Evolutionism  in  geology,  heir 
of  catastrophism  and  uni- 
formitarianism,   157. 

Evolutionists,  three  schools  of, 
213.^ 

Extermination  of  life,  no  evi- 
dence of  universal,  54, 
94,   155,   161. 

Extinction  of  parent  species 
generally  accompanies  in- 
troduction of  new  species, 
199. 

Extrapolation,  330,  331. 

Eye,  the,  as  illustration  of  de- 
sign, 304. 

Faith,  practical,  compatible 
with  doubt,  409. 

Faith-healers,  381. 

Falconer,  Hugh,  57. 

Fall,  doctrine  of,  283. 
potential,  284. 

Fertility  of  crosses  between 
breeds,  230. 

Feuerbach,  L.  A.,  308. 

First  Century,  an  unscientific 
age,  4. 

Fisher,  G.  P.,  36,  289,  306,  359, 
381. 

Fiske,  John,  251,  279. 

Flood,  the.  See  Noachian  Del- 
uge. 

Foreknowledge,  relation  of,  to 
prayer,  343. 


Fossil     species,     often     repre- 
sented only  by  single  spec- 
imens, 203. 
Fossilization,  conditions  of,  204. 
Fossils,    characteristic    of    dif- 
ferent formations,  49. 
destruction    of,    by    erosion 

and   metamorphism,   207. 
meaning  of,  44. 
Foucault,  J.  B.  L.,  131. 
Francis,  Saint,  of  Assisi,  380. 
Freedom  of  will,  277,  290. 
an  inalienable  belief,  291. 
foundation     of    ethics,     277, 

290. 
incomprehensible,  300. 
potential,  298. 

practically     assumed      when 

theoretically  denied,  291.    • 

relation   of,    to    conservation 

of  energy,  293. 
relation  of,  to  prediction  of 

human  actions,  297. 
relation    of,    to    principle    of 

causality,  293. 
relation    of,    to    providence, 
340. 
Fresnel,  A.  J.,  129. 
Furness,  W.  H.,  362. 

Galilei,  Galileo,  25,  29,  36,  37. 

Gama,  Vasco  da,  16. 

Gastrula,  i8r. 

Gautama.     See  Buddha. 

Geikie,  Archibald,  Sir,  41. 
James,  67. 

Generation,    spontaneous.     See 
Spontaneous  generation. 

Genesis  and  geology,  81. 

Geocentric  theory,  universal  in 
antiquity,  6,  17.  ^ 

Geoffroy     Saint-Hilaire,     Eti- 
enne,  211,  212. 

Geographical  distribution,  bear- 
ings of,  on  evolution,  192. 

Geometrical       conception       of 
curves,  328. 

Geometrical   increase  of  living 
beings,  169. 

17 


Index 


Geological  ages,  table  of,   103. 
Geological  record,  imperfection 

of,  202. 
Geological  time,  length  of,  232. 
Geology,  evolution  in,   153. 
history  of,  41. 
progress  of,  retarded  by  the- 
ological prejudice,  43. 
Geology  and  Genesis,  81. 
Germination  of  seed  supposed 
to  be  spontaneous  genera- 
tion, 240. 
Germ-plasm,  217. 
Gethsemane,    prayer   of   Jesus 

in,  348. 
Gill  arches  and  slits,  184. 
Giraffe,  evolution  of,  according 

to  Lamarck,  212. 
Glacial  period,  67. 
cause  of,  69. 
date  of,  72,  74. 
longer  than  postglacial  time, 

76. 
oscillations  of  climate  in,  69. 
preceded  by  continental  ele- 
vation, TZ- 
God,    character    attributed    to, 
related     to     character     of 
man,  308. 
foreknowledge  of,  343. 
immanence  of,  255,  313,  318, 

personality  of,  301. 
Gore,  J.  E.,  142. 
Gorilla,     cranial    capacity    of, 

258. 
Gospels,    date   and   authorship 
of,  361. 
discrepancies  of,  362. 
honesty  of,  363. 
legendary   elements   in,   362, 

Government  in  society  sug- 
gests idea  of  divine  gov- 
ernor, 308. 

Gradation  between  species,  198. 

Gravitatioh,  discovery  of,  9,  30. 
importance  of  discovery  of, 
ZZ,  124. 


Gravitation,   law   of,   may  not 
be  absolutely  true,  334, 

nature  of,  unknown,  33,  323. 

never  deified,  310. 

not  a  cause,  33. 
Gray,  Asa,  160,  164,  251,  252. 
Gulick,  J.  T.,  227,  230. 
Guyot,  A.  H.,  loi. 

Hallucination,   natural   history 
of,  368. 
resurrection  of  Jesus  claimed 
to  be  instance  of,  367. 

Harmonizing   of   discrepancies 
in  Bible,  88. 

Haswell,  W.  A.,  201. 

Heat,     mechanical     equivalent 
of,  133. 
relation  of,  to  light,  134. 
theories  of,  131. 

Heavenly      bodies,       apparent 
movements  of,  17. 

Hebrew     conception     of     uni- 
verse, 6. 

Hebrew  monotheism,  practical 
rather  than  theoretical,  7. 

Heilprin,  Angelo,  187. 

Heliocentric  view  of  solar  sys- 
tem, 8,  23. 

Helium,  discovery  of,  125. 

Helmholtz,  H.  L.  F.  von,  137. 

Heredity,  165. 
evolution  of,  233. 
Weismann's  theory  of,  217. 

Herod  Antipas,  8. 

Herschel,  Sir  John  F.  W.,  316. 
Sir  William,  151. 

Hessey,  J.  A.,  365. 

Hipparchus,  19. 

Hitchcock,  Edward,  93,  97. 

Hoang    Ho,     inundations    of, 
121. 

Hoffman,  F.  S.,  408. 

Hommel,  Fritz,  80. 

Homology,  177. 

Hooker,  Sir  Joseph  D.,  164. 

Hume,  David,  354,  381. 

Hume's  argument  on  miracle, 
355. 
.18 


Index 


Hutton,  James,  46,  153,  154. 
Huxley,   T.   H.,    157,    160,  241, 

248,    355,    356,    359,     2>^1^ 

370. 
Huyghens,   Christian,    129. 
Hybrids,   sterility  of,  229. 
Hypothesis,  use  of,  in  science, 

328,  395. 

Immanence  of  God,   255,   313, 
318,  T^ZT.         ... 

Immortality,  Christianity  teach- 
es embodied,  279. 
faith    in,    confirmed    by    res- 
urrection of  Jesus,  384. 
medium  of,  may  be  ethereal 

form  of  matter,  282. 
method  of,  unknown,  280. 
not  dependent  on  metaphys- 
ical theory  of  soul,  280. 

Imperfection  of  geological  rec- 
ord, 202. 

Imponderable  agents,  128. 

Incarnation,      glorification      of 
anthropomorphism.    321. 

Incipient  stages  of  organs  not 
likely  to  be  useful,  223. 

Indefinite  sentence,  238. 

Inductions     of     science     tran- 
scend experience,  264. 

Inductive    sciences,    developed 
later  than  deductive,  396. 

Inerrancy    of    Bible,    85,     112, 
116,  255,  389. 

Infancy,  effect  of,  in  evolution 
of  man,  279. 

Ingersoll,  R.  G.,  309. 

Inspiration,  85,  387. 

Instinct,  214,  221. 

Insular    species,    evolution    of, 
227. 

Interpolation,  330. 

Interpositions    of   God   in    na- 
ture, 312,  2>2>T' 

Intra-selection,  225. 

Irish  elk,  d"]. 

Iron,  Age  of,  62. 

Isolation,    a    factor    in    evolu- 
tion, 227. 


James,  William,  280. 
Jasher,  Book  of,  375. 
Java,    human    remains    in,    'j'j, 

^57.. 
Jehovistic    and    Elohistic    nar- 
ratives, differences  of,  82. 
Jellyfishes,   fossil,  201. 
Jericho,  healing  of  blind  man 

at,  88. 
Jerome,  Saint,  85. 
Jesus,    abduction    of   body    of, 
improbable,   364. 
alleged  not  to  have  died  on 

the  cross,  z^J. 
ascension  of,  10. 
character^of,  357,  401. 
miraci^'Sof,  ■ZTl- 
resurrection  of.     See  Resur- 
rection, 
reverence   for,   characteristic 

of  modern  thought,  394. 
sepulcher    of,    found    empty, 

364- 
teachings      of,      on      prayer, 

.347- 
virgin  birth  of,  378. 
John,  Saint,  an  eye-witness  of 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus, 

Johnson,  Samuel,  290. 

Jonah,  story  of,  376. 

Joshua    commanding    sun    and 
moon,  375. 

Joule,  J.  P.,  133. 

Judaism  teaches  embodied  im- 
mortality, 279. 

Jupiter,  atmosphere  of,   148. 
moons  of,  25. 

Justin  Martyr,  386. 

Kant,  Immanuel,  142,  280. 

Keane,  A.  H.,  78,  258. 

Keim,   Theodor,  371. 

Kepler,  Johann,  27,  ZT^,  329. 

Kepler's  laws,  27. 
necessary     consequences     of 
gravitation,  30. 

Kopernik,     Nicolas.     See    Co- 
pernicus. 

19 


Index 


Ladd,  G.  T.,  140,  265,  270. 

La  Madeleine,  Cave  of,  pic- 
ture of  mammoth  found 
in,  60. 

Lamarck,  J.  B.  P.  A.  de  Mo- 
net de,   162,  211. 

Languages,  development  of,  79. 

Laplace,  P.  S.,  Marquis  de, 
142,  147- 

Larvae  of  marine  invertebrates, 
minute  and  free-swim- 
ming, 205. 

Larval  stages,  adaptive  modifi- 
cations in.  186. 
resemblances    of,    to    lower 
forms,  183. 

Lavoisier,  A.  L.,  127,  135. 

Law,   moral.    See   Moral  law. 
natural.     See   Natural   law. 

Le  Conte,  Joseph,  41,  137,  160, 
178,  251,  259. 

Leibnitz,  G.  F.,  Baron  von,  29. 

Leonardo  da  Vinci,  44. 

Lewes,  G.  H.,  215. 

Life,  origin  of,  238. 
progress    of,     in    geological 
time,  188. 

Light,  relation  of,  to  heat,  134. 
undulatory   theory   of,    129. 
velocity    of,    in    air    greater 
than  in  water,  131. 

Locke,  John,  408. 

Lodge,  Sir  Oliver,  15,  318, 

Lombard,  J.  S.,  140. 

Longevity  of  antediluvians,  116. 

Lord's  Day,  evidence  of  res- 
urrection of  Jesus,  365. 

Lord's    Prayer,    the,    347,    350. 

Lotze,  R.  H.,  269,  280. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John.  See  Ave- 
bury. 

Luther,  Martin,  86. 

Luys,  J.  B.,  140. 

Lyell,  Sir  Charles,  41,  57,  153, 
161,  164,  232. 

McCarthy,  Justin,  253. 
McCosh,  James,  251,  253. 
Magellan,  Ferdinand,  16. 


Maggots,   spontaneous  genera- 
tion of,  240,  241. 
Malthus,  T.  R.,  169. 
Mammoth,  50. 
coexistence  of,  with  man,  56, 

57,  60. 
picture  of,   from  La   Made- 
leine, 60. 
Man,  antiquity  of,  55. 
evidences    of    evolution    of, 

256. 
fossil  bones  of,  rare,  57. 
gradations  between  ape  and, 

257. 
personality  of,  289. 
relics  of,  associated  with  ex- 
tinct animals,  56. 

Marriage,  necessity  of  restric- 
tions upon,  238. 

Mary  Magdalene,  367. 

Materialism,  265. 

Matter,  complexity  of,  281. 

Maxwell,  J.  Clerk,  316. 

Mayer,  J.  R.  von,  133,  136. 

Mechanical  equivalent  of  heat, 

Memory,    physiological    condi- 
tion of,  282. 
Mental    states.    See    Psychical 

states. 
Mesmerists,  381. 
Meteorites,  124. 

Meteors,  nebula  probably  con- 
sisted of,   149. 
Meyer,  Eduard,  79. 
Mill,  J.  S.,  292. 
Miller,  Hugh,  99. 
Milton,  John,  21,  284. 
Miracle,  351. 
a  priori  improbability  of,  9, 

353,  355,  371.. 
confined  to  critical  epochs  in 
history  of  revelation,  372. 
evidential  value  of,  382, 
Hume's  argument  on,  355. 
physical  meaning  of,  335. 
possibility  of,  335,  354. 
probability    of,    to    a    theist, 
359. 


420 


Index 


Miracle,  readily  believed  in  an 

unscientific  age,  8. 
Miracles,    Biblical,  not  equally 
credible,  374. 
ecclesiastical,  380. 
modern,  381. 
pagan,  380. 
Missing  links,  257. 
Mivart,  St.  George,  222. 
Mohammedanism    teaches   em- 
bodied   immortality,    279. 
Monism,  265,  266. 
not  inconsistent  with  immor- 
tality, 279. 
tendency  of  evolution  toward, 
268,  276. 
Moon,  origin  of,  150. 
temperature  of,  149. 
Moral  character  of  man,  rela- 
tion   of,    to   conception    of 
God,  308. 
Moral  law,   relation  of  prayer 
to,  344. 
sense  of,  gives  idea  of  moral 
governor,  308. 
Morgan,    C.    Lloyd,    215,    220, 

221. 
Morris,   Charles,  205,  248. 
Mosaic    dispensation,    miracles 

of,  2,72>- 
Moulton,  F.  R.,  152. 

Natural  law,  321. 

cause  of,  336. 

fetish  of  modern  thought, 
322. 

meaning  of,  324. 

relation  of,  to  prayer,  345.   . 

relation  of,  to  providence, 
338. 

uncertainty  of,  2)3>3,  354,  4o6. 
Natural  selection,  169,  171. 

a  real  tendency,    173. 

action  of,  on  man,  abolished 
by   civilization,   237. 

adequacy  of,  in  absence  of 
determinate  variation,  222. 

conservative  in  stable  envi- 
ronment, 174. 


Natural  selection,  ethical  effect 
of,  278. 
modifies  argument  from  de- 
sign, 304. 
progressive   in  changing  en- 
vironment, 176. 
relieves  a  perplexity  in  nat- 
ural theology,  307. 
Nature.     See  Universe, 
Neanderthal    skull,    the,    257, 

259- 
Nebula,    the,    not    the    begin- 
ning, 315. 
Nebulae,  151. 

Nebular   theory,   the,    142. 
theological      objections      to, 
251. 
Negroes,  pictures  of,  on  Egyp- 
tian monuments,  yy. 
Neo-Lamarckians,  213,  221. 
Neolithic  Age,  63. 

date  of,  76. 
Neolithic   man,   an  invader   in 
Europe,  65, 
associated  with  animals  still 

surviving,  ^. 
domesticated  animals,  65. 
not  an  artist,  66. 
stage  of  culture  of,  6^. 
Nero,  3,  8. 

Nerve  force,  velocity  of,  139. 
Newcomb,  Simon,  142. 
Newton,  Sir  Isaac,  29,  30,  124, 

129.* 
Niagara  Gorge,  age  of,  75. 
Nicodemus,  382. 
Nineteenth  Century,  character- 
istics   of    intellectual    and 
religious  life  in,  394,   395, 
404,  411. 
Noachian  Deluge,  45,  90,  118. 
not     universal     as     regards 

earth,  119. 
not  universal  as  regards  man, 

122. 
traditional  date  of,  81. 


Ocean  bottom,  exploration  of, 
247. 


421 


Index 


Ontology,  not  foundation  of 
ethics,  277. 

Orbits  of  heavenly  bodies,  sup- 
posed to  be  circular,  18. 

Orbits  of  planets,  elliptical,  27. 

Organic  chemistry,  250. 

Organic  selection,  220. 

Osborn,  H.  F.,   159,  220. 

Otter  sheep,  224. 

Paine,   Thomas,  394. 
Paleolithic  Age,  63. 

antiquity  of,  76. 
Paleolithic  man,  artistic  ability 
of,  66. 

associated   with   extinct  ani- 
mals, 66. 

in  Egypt,  80. 

interglacial,  in  Europe,  69. 

not  indigenous  in  Europe,  'jy. 

stage  of  culture  of,  63. 
Paleontology,    bearing    of,    on 
evolution,  187. 

rise  of,  49. 

tabular  synopsis  of,  103. 
Paley,  William,  304,  393. 
Pantheism,  319. 

Pantheism       and        anthropo- 
morphism,   limits    of    idea 
of  God,  320. 
Parallax,  annual,  of  stars,  35. 
Parasitic  organisms,  240, 
Parker,  T.  J.,  201. 
Parsons,  William.     See  Rosse. 
Pasteur,  Louis,  243. 
Patriarchs,  longevity  of,  116. 
Paul,  Saint,  275,  279,  361,  365. 
Peacock,  black-shouldered,  225. 
Pearson,  Karl,  33,  238,  251. 
Peirce,  Benjamin,  306. 
Peptone,  synthesis  of,  250. 
Personality,  infinite,  compatible 

with  uniformity,  311,  316. 
Personality  of  God,  301. 
Personality  of  man,  289. 
Petrie,  W.  M.  Flinders,  80. 
Philosophy,      ancient,      largely 

esoteric,  5. 
Phlogiston,  126. 


Physicists,  views  of,  on  length 
of  geological  time,  232. 

Physiological  selection,  231. 

Picard,  Jean,  32. 

Pigeons,  breeds  of,  230. 

Pithecanthropus     erectus,     ^T, 
257. 

Planetary    movements,    coinci- 
dences in,  143. 

Planetary  orbits.     See  Orbits. 

Planets,  temperatures  of,  148. 

Plants,  consciousness  in,  274. 

Plants    and    animals,    no    de- 
marcation between,  273. 

Plasticity     of     living     forms, 
greater  in  earlier  time,  233. 

Plato,  19. 

Pneuma  and  psyche,  antithesis 
of,  275. 

Polytheism,  301. 
natural     in     an     unscientific 
age,  7. 

Porter,  Noah,  262. 

Prayer,  341. 
expression  of  faith  in  provi- 
dence, 341. 
form  of,  must  change,  349. 
limited    by    scientific   knowl- 
edge, 346. 
omnipotent  in  limited  sphere, 

344- 

relation    of,     to    foreknowl- 
edge, 343- 

relation   of,    to   natural   law, 

345- 

submissive  spirit  in,  345,  350. 

superstitious  forms  of,  342. 

the  Lord's,  347,  350. 
Prestwich,   Joseph,   57. 
Priestley,  Joseph,  127. 
Principia,  29,  396. 
Probability,  the  guide  of  life, 

406. 
Proctor,  R.  A.,  15. 
Profiles  of  human  and  simian 

skulls,  259. 
Proof-texts,  390. 
Prophecy,  function  of,  106. 
Protoplasm,  evolution  of,  251. 


422 


Index 


Providence,  SS7- 
relation   of,   to  human  voli- 
tion, 340. 
relation  of,   to   natural  law, 

338. 
special,  337,  339- 

Psyche  and  pneuma,  antithesis 
of,  275. 

Psychical  and  cerebral  changes, 
correlated,  262. 
disparate,  264,  294. 

Psychical  differences  between 
man  and  brute,  270. 

Psychical  nature  of  man,  evi- 
dences of  evolution  of,  270. 

Psychical  states  may  be  cause 
of  physical  phenomena, 
296. 

Psychology,  comparative,  270. 
foundation  of  ethics,  277. 

Psycho  -  physical  parallelism, 
264. 

Ptolemaic  theory,  20. 

Ptolemy,  19. 

Putrefaction,  relation  of,  to 
bacteria,  243. 

Pythagoras,  42. 

Quaternary  human  skulls, 
simian  character  of,  257. 

Radio-active  substances,  318. 
Reconciliation   of  Genesis  and 
geology,  92. 
impossible,  in. 
unnecessary,  112. 
Redi,   Francesco,  241. 
Reformation,    dogma    of   iner- 
rancy later  than,  86. 
Religion      always      anthropo- 
morphic, 309,  320. 
Religion   and   science,    conflict 
of,  311,  313- 
reconciliation  of,  404,  411. 
Renan,  J.  E.,  367,  394- 
Resurrection  of  Jesus,  351. 
best     attested     of     miracles, 

352. 
corner-stone     of     faith     of 


primitive  church,  352,  366, 

377- 
existence  of  church  an  evi- 
dence of,  366. 
hallucination  theory  of,  367. 
historic  record  of,  361. 
importance  of,  351,  360. 
not  unnatural,  336. 
regarded  as  a  subjective  mir- 
acle, 371. 
renders  other  miracles  cred- 
ible, 372,  380. 
why  more  credible  than  any 
other  resurrection,  357. 
Revelation,  progressive,  389. 

through  human  life,  386. 
Revelation  and  the  Bible,  385. 
Romanes,  G.  J.,  160,  185,  215, 
227,  230,  266,  306,  360,  411. 
Rosa,  E.  B.,  139. 
Rosse,  Earl  of,  151. 
Rudimentary  organs,   179,  256. 
Rumford,  Count,   132. 

Sabbath,   distinct  from  Lord's 

Day,  365. 
the,  of  creative  week,  99. 
Saint-Hilaire,  E.  Geoffroy.  See 

Geoffroy. 
Samaritan    Pentateuch,    chro- 
nology of,  115. 
Saturn,  rings  of,  147. 
Schmerling,  P.  C.,  56. 
Schurman,  J.  G.,  251,  277. 
Schiitzenberger,  P.,  250. 
Schweinfurth,  G.  A.,  78. 
Science,  limits  of,  322. 
limits  sphere  of  prayer,  346. 
method  of,  324. 
possible  scope  of,  326. 
Science    and    religion,    conflict 

of,  311,  313. 
reconciliation  of,  404,  411. 
Sciences,    inductive,  .developed 

later  than  deductive,  396. 
Scientific    discoveries,    history 

of,  13,  402. 
Scientific     view     of    universe, 

characteristic  ideas  of,  8. 


423 


Index 


Scripture.  See  Bible. 
Sedgwick,  Adam,  233. 
Selection,  artificial,  172. 

natural.     See  Natural   selec- 
tion. 

organic,  220. 

physiological,  231. 

sexual.     See     Sexual     selec- 
tion. 
Selective  value,  223. 
Sentence,  indefinite,  238. 
Septuagint,  chronology  of,  115. 
Sepulcher     of     Jesus,      found 

empty,  364. 
Series,   mathematical,   327. 
Sermon    on    the    Mount,    the, 

347. 
Sexual  selection,  234. 

importance  of,  in  man,  236. 
Shakespeare,  William,  369. 
Sheep,  ancon  or  otter,  224. 
Siddhartha.     See  Buddha. 
Skeletons,  animals  destitute  of, 
not  likely  to  be  fossilized, 
201,  205. 
Skepticism,     theoretical,     com- 
patible       with        practical 
faith,  409. 
Skulls,     human     and     simian, 

profiles  of,  259. 
Smith,  Adam,  310. 
John  Pye,  95. 
William,  48. 
Smyth,  Newman,  251. 
Socrates,  5,  280,  386. 
Solar  system,  evolution  of,  142. 
geocentric  theory  of,  17. 
heliocentric  theory  of,  23. 
thermal  conditions  of,  148. 
Somatoplasm,  217. 
Soul,  indivisibility  of,  not  im- 
portant   as    proof    of    im- 
mortality, 280. 
origin  of,  260. 

possessed  by  what  orders  of 
beings,  272. 
Souls,  plurality  of,  275. 
South,  Robert,  283. 
South  America,  fauna  of,  195. 


Species,  crosses  between,  gen- 
erally sterile,  229. 
delimitation  of,  most  difficult 
in  best-known  groups,  196. 
origin  of,  159. 

Specific  characters,  utility  of, 
222,  225. 

Spectroscope,  125,  152. 

Spencer,   Herbert,   225. 

Spinoza,   Benedict,  292. 

Spirit.     See  Soul. 

Spiritualism,  265. 

Spiritualists,  381. 

Spontaneous   generation,   239. 
experiments  on,  241. 
prejudices  in  favor  of,  239. 

Spores  of  bacteria,  tenacity  of 
life  of,  245. 

Spy,  fossil  skull  from,  259. 

Stahl,  G.  E.,  126. 

Stars,  distance  of,  35. 

Sterility,  absence  of,  in  crosses 
between  breeds,  230. 
presence   of,    in    crosses   be- 
tween species,  229. 
prevents    dilution    of    useful 
characters  by  crossing,  230. 

Stewart,  Balfour,  125,  281. 

Stigmata,  380. 

Stone,  Age  of,  62. 

Struggle  for  life,  the,  170. 

Stumpf,   Karl,  269. 

Sun   and   moon   standing   still, 

375. 

Swedenborg,  Emanuel,  142, 
283.. 

Synthesis  of  organic  com- 
pounds, 250. 

Tait,  P.  G.,  281. 

Taylor,  F.  B.,  75. 

Telescope,  invention  of,  25. 

Temple,   Frederick,  298. 

Tennyson,  Alfred,  Lord,   157. 

Theological  bearings  of  evolu- 
tion, 251. 

Thompson,  Benjamin,  Count 
Rumford,   132. 

Traducianism,  261. 


424 


Index 


Tripartite  constitution  of  man, 

275. 
Tycho  Brahe.     See  Brahe. 
Tyler,  J.  M.,  251. 
Tyndall,  John,  125,  245. 

Ultra-Darwinians,  213,  221. 
Unconformability,  52,  155,  208. 
Undulatory     theory    of    light, 

129. 
Ungulates,  distinctions  of,  from 
unguiculates,  190. 

generalized  character  of  ear- 
liest,  191. 
Uniforniitarianism,  93,  154,  232. 

errors  of,  155. 
Universe,     a     cosmos,     not    a 
chaos,  327. 

eternity  of,  318. 

extension  of,  in  space,  8,  15. 

extension  of,  in  time,  9,  41. 

ground  of,  must  be  one,  302. 

magnitude  of,  34. 

truthfulness  of,  291. 

unity  of,  9,  124. 
Urea,  synthesis  of,  250. 
Use  and  disuse,  effects  of,  212. 
Usher,  James,  80,  115. 

Van  Dyke,  Henry,  411. 
Variation,  165,  166. 
determinate    and    indetermi- 
nate, 210. 
limited  and  oscillatory  under 

ordinary    conditions,    167. 
not  always  minute,  224. 
reality  of  determinate,  234. 


Variations  in  single  individu- 
als, not  likely  to  be  pre- 
served, 226. 

Vasco  da  Gama,  16. 

Venus,  phases  of,  25. 

Vertebrates,  limbs  of,  177. 

Vinci,  Leonardo  da,  44. 

Virtues,  developed  by  natural 
selection,  278. 

Vital  forces,  correlated  with 
physical,    136. 

Vogt,  Karl,  265. 

Voltaire,  F.  M.  Arouet  de,  90. 

Wallace,  A.  R.,  160,  163,  194. 

Ward,  James,  ^iZ,  280,  307,  318. 

Waste  of  life,  explained  by 
natural  selection,   307. 

Weismann,  August,  214,  217, 
225. 

Weismannians,    213,   221. 

■Whewell,  William,   15,   125. 

Whitney,  W.  D.,  79. 

Will,  freedom  of.  See  Free- 
dom. 

Winchell,  Alexander,   142. 

Wohler,  Friedrich,  250. 

Woods,  F.  H.,  121. 

Wundt,  W.  M.,  266. 

Youmans,  E.  L.,  125. 
Young,   Thomas,   129. 

Zeno,  292. 

Zittel,  K.  A.  von,  41. 
Zoological  classification,  indefi- 
niteness  of,   196. 


425 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subjea  to  immediate  recall. 


m-m 


urn 


8-190C  3  4 


0/5 '669  iR*^" 


ftUG  1  6  19»t 


AUTO  DISC  CIRC  OCT    9*93 


LD  21A-60m-10,'65 
(F7763sl0)476B 


General  Library 
University  of  California 

Berkeley 


3033-: 


,  l\BB^B\tS 


